computer v. digital recorder

H

hdi

New member
I am getting back into to music after a 10 year hiatus. My recording background, limited as it is, is analog. What I want to do is create music, write songs, and not spend a lot of time figuring out how use hardware/software. I just bought a Motif 8 and the on-board sequencer is so difficult and obtuse (and the manual is opaque!!! is adds confusion instead of spreading light) that is is useless. So my question is this:
What is easier to use - a computer based software program or a dedicated digital recorder?
What I am specifically considering is Sonar XL v. Roland VS-1824CD. Don't worry about cost, by the time I get a new computer, monitor, etc. they'll cost about the same. Also, I am not interested in a lot of 'features' if they are very time consuming to master. If they are, such 'features' will go unused.
What I want to do is lay down, probably about 12-22 tracks on average, and do this quickly and easily and then mix it down adding a few effects, which I also want to do easily.
So, which is easier to use for my purposes, computer or digital recorder?

Thanks,

Charlie
 
PC recording isn't that difficult. I'm not technical at all but I get by. On the other hand PCs can be trouble as you know.

The Roland stand alone digital recorders to date have been infamously complicated to use. I don't know that model you mentioned. Maybe it's an improvement on its predecessors. Improved in the face of the competition - such as the Yamaha AW4416. Have you looked at this box at all? I'd be interested in it if I had the money. The Roland's also use data compression as far as I remember. I don't think the Yamaha does.

If I was starting from scratch I would go for a standalone digital recorder over a PC, but mainly because of the way I want to work, rather than fear of the complications of PC recording.

Hopefully, some better informed responses will follow.
 
I would steer you in the opposite direction. :D
You would have more flexibility with a computer.
The learning curve is a m*thaf^cka on the Roland unit. Plus, it compresses the information.
You'll have a better interface with the computer (19" monitor versus a 4" by 4" LCD screen).
Plus, with the computer, you'll have an unlimited number of tracks.
Also, if you want portability for the computer, you could purchase a rackmount case.

As Atwork said, I'm sure more members will share their opinoins.
 
Check out the Roland Studio Pack for $700. Best bang for the buck if you already have a PC. You will have everything you need to get started.
 
I'm with SPIN, I feel that the flexibility of PC recording outweighs the annoying side charms, IMHO of course.



Laj
 
Atwork said:
On the other hand PCs can be trouble as you know.
Click to expand...

Not if you build them with good components, and follow the system requirements your software asks for...

Every PC recording problem (well almost everyone I have heard) has has something to do to people trying to half ass it.....

I've heard people calling PC's shit, and found out they are trying to run PT LE with a 10 Gig $30 no name brand slow-ass drive and VIA Chips....

PC users tend to be cheap-asses, (I know I am at least):) and thats why we use PC's and Not Macs... But you can't be a cheap- ass when it comes to following the requirements for your recording software.

I assure you that the stigma that PC has gotten has alot to do with people not following the Requirements there software needs and then coming online and complaining....:rolleyes:

Anyways... That said....
I Vote PC... Build it good, and you will have a flexible, reliable system...
 
Well, count me in as a vote for the standalone route. I have both a computer DAW and standalone HDRs with a good old analog mixer, and I far prefer the latter.

I didn't cheap out: I bought a complete up-to-date DAW, assembled, loaded, and tested as a package, from a company that specializes in building DAWs (Sound Chaser). It's a great machine, *now*, but driver conflicts, Cubase bugs, and other annoying side issues still made it take months before I got it running in a stable enough mode to actually use it. And I'm quite computer literate: but not, unfortunately, literate enough in the care and feeding of Windows.

I was recording successfully on my standalone HDR as my DAW was giving me the Blue Screen Of Death on an hourly basis. Two years in, I've still never seen my Fostex crash, lose data, or interrupt me when I was trying to get work done. And I still fear that exact occurance with my DAW (even though it has now been 6 months since my last Cubase crash). I know it's going to happen again, though: the only question is "when?".

If you are a good, experienced Windows hack, and are used to building Windows machines, sorting out driver and IRQ wierdnesses, cleaning up the registry, and doing all the Microsoft-specific janitorial stuff that apparently everybody but me knows how to do: the DAW will dance and sing for you. But if you *aren't* a Windows (or Mac) guru, and you just want something to behave like your old analog hardware did, go standalone- and don't look back.

I'm like you: I learned the art in the '70s with analog tape, and then walked away for over a decade. When I came back into it, what I wanted was hardware that behaved just like my old analog machines, only better. Computer recording will drive folks like you and I *apeshit buckfuck wildman NUTS*. it is not a plug-and-chug proposition. I don't mean to belittle Vox and the other folks here who are really good with their DAWs: in fact, I envy them. But the thing they sometimes don't recognize is that lots of people don't have that inside track on sorting out machines, and don't really *want* to spend their energies there...

IMHO, of course- your mileage will certainly vary. But if (like me) you didn't grow up building Windows machines for fun, then you may find that having to learn that black art *before* you can get down to doing your music may not be very enjoyable.
 
skippy said:
I don't mean to belittle Vox and the other folks here who are really good with their DAWs: in fact, I envy them. But the thing they sometimes don't recognize is that lots of people don't have that inside track on sorting out machines, and don't really *want* to spend their energies there...
Click to expand...

I liked your post.. It made sense :)

One thing I wanted to comment on is that, there is no inside track nor anything to sort out... my PC has simply never broken down (yet)... Im creeping up to 9 months without even one single problem..

And about the analoque thing and being used to the "old way"... I was like that also.. I hated daw.. In fact if you search me..you will see posts I wrote only this past April that are negative against computer music"

After months of ribbing, my friend talked me into buying PT LE....I told him he had to pay the visa bill if it sucked.... Within 1 hour of cracking the box, I was rolling.... there are even familiar transport controls...(on screen)...

I sold my ADATS recently, and theres no going back..:)

I want to make it clear that I am not familiar at all with computers or building them... I didn't even know what defragmenting was until about 2 months ago...

You don't need to be a computer nerd if the computer if built right in the first place... Yeah maybe a few tweaks here and there....but thats it. (I didn't even need the tweaks)

Tell you what Skippy...
Buy a pro tools rig and If you don't like it, I will buy it from you and give you $500 Cash on top of it......

Ok, Not likely.. But that fake offer shows how much of a life changer it was for me....:D


Anyways.. I totally agree with your post, (other than the computers being trouble thing) and I totally know where your coming from... Makes total sense..

Cheers..
Joe:)
 
The bottom line is what type of editing you want to do.

Any DAW or a HDD will track easily enough. DAW's have 100x the editing capabilities but that is where things get complicated.

If all you ever want to do is record like you did on tape and not take advantage of cut and paste editing and the other new stuff then go with an HDD.

Just for the record, I'd take a DAW anyday over a HDD. But I like to edit.
 
Thanks for the kind words. If I had it to do again, I might very well go Mac/PT, as you suggest. But when I first got the DAW, I really just wanted it to be a path from my HDR to my home network here, so that my digital audio data could get backed up nightly along with all the data for my business (since, after all, bits is bits...). I wasn't really planning on doing DAW-like editing/munging *work* on it: it was just supposed to be a file transfer medium, really.

What got me to go PC-based rather than Mac-based was my (probably out-of-date) knowledge of how much of a pain in the butt Macs are to get onto a non-Apple network. I already had Samba running on my Unix servers so that this desktop Windows thing I'm typing on now, and my wife's office PC, could get networked and backed up in my all-Unix shop. Rather than add another flavor of probably-incompatible machine to the mix, that really forced my hand: I pretty much had to go the PC route.

I wish I'd had a different, better experience, like yours. And my experience really *was* pretty smooth, because I _did_ get a machine that was preinstalled and optimized to the limits of the software of the day. That was worth every dime I paid for it! I would hate to have tried to go it alone, because even knowing as much as I do about computers in general and networking in particular, it would have taken months of going through all the conflicting information on different web sites to find out what the _real_ requirements of the software were. I didn't find out that my version of Cubase was fatally buggy for the first two months- I figured that it had to be something I was doing wrong.

Thanks for kicking in a success story, for sure. Leads to a question: I wonder how many folks have unbelieveable troubles with the standalone route, for that matter? For me, it was completely easy- but that's because *I* grew up with wads of wire, patch bays, multitrack analog; biasing and setting levels for the tape stock of the day one track at a time... and all the annoyances that go along with *that*. So lots of analogish stuff didn't even register with me, since I was expecting it. Someone who can field-strip a Pentium blindfolded without even losing their place in Quake would probably tear their hair out at some of the things that are just second nature to me...

Everybody's answer will always be based on their personal experiences and their own threshold of pain for a given type of annoyance! Cool thread, though- I hope it helps someone.
 
Yo Hdi, hdi hdi, HI....[Who sang that line? If you know, you win a prize.}

In reality either side of recording, the PC, or stand alone box offers hi quality.

The Yam 4416 and 2816 DO NOT COMPRESS DATA.

The 2816 and 4416 are really miniature computers -- small screen and kind of difficult to learn but not if you keep at it.

The 2816 has great converters, at least that's what my ears tell me. I have concluded after two months on the "learning curve" that the 2816 is really an easy box to run; it's the {quote Spin} manual that makes it so tough as the manual is not logically organized.

But, I'm happy with the 2816 and if I had a PC based digital unit, I'd probably be happy with that too. Being happy is more fun than not being happy.

Happy St. Patrick's day to all and all of the above.
Green Hornet
:D :D :p :p
 
Regardless of how many times I see this question posted, I always want to read the replies, especially since I'm new to the recording world. I too am trying to decide if a standalone DAW (or hard disk recorder) is the way I want to start or if I should go the computer-based DAW route. I'm leaning towards a standalone and like someone already said, it's all a personal preference. :)

Yesterday (Sunday), I took a trip to an audio store and demoed a variety of standalone DAWs, which included Fostex, Roland, Korg, Akai and Yamaha products. I was most impressed with the features of the Yamaha units (2816 & 4416) and the Korg was easy to navigate.

Here is a question I have for current standalone DAW users:
  • Is there ever any need to have a computer-based DAW in addition to your standalone? If so, what do you specifically use the computer DAW for?

I was told by a sales rep at the audio store that if one has a standalone DAW, one doesn't need a computer DAW.

Thanks,

Phree
 
i went from a roland vs to remain nameless to sonar its like night and day i love the sonar i was using vs just as a mixer but the phuqin mic pre-amps are terrible so i sold it cheap and got a delta 44
 
Since you're coming from an analog background, I would buck the trend of this thread and get a cheap stand alone to start with. You could always turn to computers after you get your feet wet.

The Zoom MRS-4 is $229 at Sam Ash, which is an unheard of price for a digital recorder. It's only four track, but like I said you can cut your teeth on it.

When/If you decide to go computer based, you could always incorporate the stand alone and feed the digital signal into your PC for further tweaking.

Carl
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top