Computer or Digital Workstation Recording???

leaversday

New member
OK, for recording at home, whats better from the standpoint of sound quality, ease of use and overall functionality? Would you say computer-based recording with some form of interface/software or a 16 - 24 track digital workstation recorder?

I have tried both and currently use the computer-based solution but I wonder if I could have done better with a stand-alone workstation. I think I have a lot to learn still about the overall recording process but I don't know if I am completely sold on the computer-based method.

What's your preference?
 
As far as sound quality goes, he quality of the converters is the real determining factor. As far as the interface etc. , I think that's more a matter of personal preference.

I am currently using a HD 24 to record on and a PC to edit with. It's working out great so far.
 
I agree with everything that's been said thus far. I'd like to add a little forward planning option to the mix...

At this point in the game for someone just starting out, I'd be very inclined to suggest that they start out very inexpensive on an existing computer right now to get their feet wet (a nice preamp'd interface that comes with CubaseSE, for example). Perhaps buildup the mic collection a little bit and get practicing on the mic technique, but hold off on committing to the big iron one way or another until next year.

The reason I say that is because the Next Big Thing will be the full integration of workstation systems and PC-based DAWs. The trend has already started with the offering of control surfaces that double as full-fledged digital mixers and DAW control surfaces on one end, and something like the Mackie X.200, on the other (and much higher ;) ) end.

From either direction what you'll wind up with is a full physical mixer with real-world I/O *and* physical control of your favorite DAW software of your choice, without sacrificing the ability to keep the computer side upgraded over time. It's arguably the best of both worlds, and it's one that's going to hit the market big time in the next year or so. At which time the question of which way to go will become academic, and many current project studio configurations will suddenly look as quaint as a rack of DA-88s. ;)

G.
 
My current set up is with the DAW,( Boss BR 1600) I'm looking at using a PC for editing etc. I'm interested in the feedback in this thread.
 
Gorty said:
I'm interested in the feedback in this thread.

I really am as well. I currently use a firepod with a 1.8GHZ G5 and seem to miss using a stand-alone workstation where system resources don't seem to matter as much. I realize that I should have had a bit more powerful of a computer but I don't know if I am cut out for the computer route. I would like to build something in the future that will provide sound quality that's not labled as a "Demo CD".
 
Computer Specs for Recording

I am piggy-backing my question into this thread since it is related. Hope this is ok.

I have been recording (personal/amateur) on a Fostex 4-track cassette recorder but am seriously thinking of moving up to digital -- either console such as Fostex MR-8 or into computer. Since I have been using a laptop computer for years I need guidance on what I must get in desktop computer for adequate recording. My laptop will not cut it, that I know.

What specifically should I look for when shopping for my desktop to enable me to use it for recording?
 
abc123 said:
What specifically should I look for when shopping for my desktop to enable me to use it for recording?
Although you didn't specify, it sounds like you're talking about a Wintel platform and not a Mac, though you could very well go either way. As my experience is with Wintel I'll talk about that and leave the Mac specs to somebody who knows more about those than I. In no specific order...

First, you'll want to get the fastest processor and most memory you can afford in your budget. I'd say a minimum spec of what's avaialable these days would be a 2GHz processor with 512MB RAM. While not idea, this is quite doable (I've done a lot with a lot less.) Though if you can afford it, you'd be better served with 3GHz processing and 1GB RAM. Anything above that would be gravy on the potatos.

There may be disagreement in some circles on this next one, but I'd personally recommend going with a full-Intel motherboard (versus something like an Aseus motherboard with an AMD processor.) By "full Intel" I'm referring not only to a Pentium 4 (not Celeron) CPU, but also an Intel "chipset" for the CPU support functions, Intel/Phoenix BIOS, and (though this is more optional) an actual Intel motherboard. While some other motherboards/CPUs/chipsets may sport better data thruput bu a couple of percentage points, unless you're buying a machine for pro gaming or something like that, the performance difference will not be all that noticable. But with the Intel/Phoenix configuration you in general run across less in the way of compatability problems with add-on cards and some of the more sophisticated software packages.

Third, get a mobo with plenty of USB I/O and PCI expansion slots. The more you have, the more breathing room for expansion and add-ons you'll have. I have 6 PCI slots on my motherboard and they are all used up. Though some of mine are for video capture, extra USB and other stuff that an average newer DAW may not need, it's better to have too many than too few slots.

Fourth, get a large (AT-class) chassis with the largest power supply you can find amd as many drive bays as you can. Either a rack mount or full tower-style case will do, though the rack-mounts are usually quite a bit more expensive.

Fifth, get a chassis configuration (or whole computer) that's been designed with aerodynamics in mind. This means that the layout of the inside and the fans and such have been designed for maximum airflow across the motherboard and the CPU in particular to keep it cool. I've seen some homemade systems with aftermarket cases that have burnt out the CPU because the ventilation on the case was inadequate or poorly placed, especially after a truckload of expansion cards and drives were added in.

Sixth, when given the choice between finalist systems, pick one that generates the lowest amount of fan and disc drive noise. You don;t want a computer where you can't hear your mixes well because of the amount of noise it makes.

Seventh, start out with at least two hard drives. The first one, Drive C:, will, as usual, act as your boot and system drive as well as your application drive (where your Program Files are located). The second, Drive D: should be reserved as your data drive, where all your actual WAV files and porject files and such are stored. The D: drive should be at least 80GB these days, I would say. Extra drives can be added at the start or at any other time, but starting with the two is a good idea.

G.
 
SouthSIDE Glen said:
Although you didn't specify, it sounds like you're talking about a Wintel platform and not a Mac, though you could very well go either way. As my experience is with Wintel I'll talk about that and leave the Mac specs to somebody who knows more about those than I. In no specific order...

First, you'll want to get the fastest processor and most memory you can afford in your budget. I'd say a minimum spec of what's avaialable these days would be a 2GHz processor with 512MB RAM. While not idea, this is quite doable (I've done a lot with a lot less.) Though if you can afford it, you'd be better served with 3GHz processing and 1GB RAM. Anything above that would be gravy on the potatos.

There may be disagreement in some circles on this next one, but I'd personally recommend going with a full-Intel motherboard (versus something like an Aseus motherboard with an AMD processor.) By "full Intel" I'm referring not only to a Pentium 4 (not Celeron) CPU, but also an Intel "chipset" for the CPU support functions, Intel/Phoenix BIOS, and (though this is more optional) an actual Intel motherboard. While some other motherboards/CPUs/chipsets may sport better data thruput bu a couple of percentage points, unless you're buying a machine for pro gaming or something like that, the performance difference will not be all that noticable. But with the Intel/Phoenix configuration you in general run across less in the way of compatability problems with add-on cards and some of the more sophisticated software packages.

Third, get a mobo with plenty of USB I/O and PCI expansion slots. The more you have, the more breathing room for expansion and add-ons you'll have. I have 6 PCI slots on my motherboard and they are all used up. Though some of mine are for video capture, extra USB and other stuff that an average newer DAW may not need, it's better to have too many than too few slots.

Fourth, get a large (AT-class) chassis with the largest power supply you can find amd as many drive bays as you can. Either a rack mount or full tower-style case will do, though the rack-mounts are usually quite a bit more expensive.

Fifth, get a chassis configuration (or whole computer) that's been designed with aerodynamics in mind. This means that the layout of the inside and the fans and such have been designed for maximum airflow across the motherboard and the CPU in particular to keep it cool. I've seen some homemade systems with aftermarket cases that have burnt out the CPU because the ventilation on the case was inadequate or poorly placed, especially after a truckload of expansion cards and drives were added in.

Sixth, when given the choice between finalist systems, pick one that generates the lowest amount of fan and disc drive noise. You don;t want a computer where you can't hear your mixes well because of the amount of noise it makes.

Seventh, start out with at least two hard drives. The first one, Drive C:, will, as usual, act as your boot and system drive as well as your application drive (where your Program Files are located). The second, Drive D: should be reserved as your data drive, where all your actual WAV files and porject files and such are stored. The D: drive should be at least 80GB these days, I would say. Extra drives can be added at the start or at any other time, but starting with the two is a good idea.

G.

Or you can just get a Mac and Pro Tools. It really is that simple.

tim
 
And the winner of the Bill Gates' "Just put all your eggs in one basket and never buy another product from any other company but ours because you can trust us to do the best by you no matter what and you don't have to worry your pretty little blonde head about anything because frankly we're smarter than you'll ever care to be" Award goes to...

Tim Walker said:
Or you can just get a Mac and Pro Tools. It really is that simple.

Just kidding (sort of) :D

G.

P.S. Tim, that was a jab at DigiThink, not at you. :)
 
A friend of mine uses one of the bigger DAW's...he's got a couple REAL nice Avalon pre's, a good mic collection, and about 5 years experience working with it.

I have a PC with Sonar, 2 mics, a Hughes and Ketter guitar pre, an M Audio Octane, and a Behringer (GASP!!!) mixer. I've had it 3 years.

The difference between the sound quality of the two systems is like night and day in definite favor of the PC based unit. Not that really good recordings are not possible on the other one, it just that it is FAAARRRR easier to get good results with the PC unit. And editing is a nightmare on the DAW.
 
SouthSIDE Glen -

What a great detailed reply. I will print, digest, and put to use when getting that desktop (yes, Wintel). I got caught up in something & just ckd back here after being away from Forum for few days so sorry for late Thank You.
 
Back
Top