Computerless recording setup - ideas ?

In terms of features in a stand alone unit it's hard to beat the old top of the line Akai DPS, Roland VS & Yamaha AW's but storage and movement of your recorded audio is what I'd consider a bind...

I'd go for one of the new standalone's that use SD cards as a storage medium (tascam DP, zoom R). You lose a lot of outs (and flying faders) but gain easy transferability.
 
I started out with reel to reel machines , went to multi track cassette machines , upgraded to a Yamaha digital 16 track with full editing and cd burning. I didn't realize how much more fun and artistic I could be until I started recording with a pc. They are just too easy to use and edit with compared to stand alone workstations. You can set up a cheap laptop , use a small le program (usually free when you buy an interface) and make some great recordings with minimal spending. Good luck... MS
 
All sorts of people do things differently--I mean, insofar as recording, or tracking, but I don't get the whole aversion to recording using a DAW. Have you tried it yet? Sure, guys like Steve Albini and to a lesser extent Jack White do it, but they are exceptions. I don't knock what they and others do, but the convenience, and as another poster put it, the ease with which one can get creative with a DAW are serious incentives to get up and running with it. You're going to edit with tracks dumped into a DAW, so why not go the distance?
 
In 2005 I had a show-down between the Roland and the Akai. I went with the VS due to the amount of powered inputs / FX features, i/o options and have been completely satisfied. It's true that most companies ended support for these machines a long time ago and "busted" them up into little computer DAW controllers and such but IMO the vs-2480 was the premiere stand-a-lone DAW for it's time.

I believe the pre-amps are pretty good (if not REALLY good) for an all-in-one machine, although it's worth noting that roland did ship out A LOT of the 2480's some where between 2002-2006 with damaged pre amps....seems they would distort well below the clipping level..and there for came... "the fix"....a recall in which users either modded it themselves, or sent it back to roland to have the work done.

I tested all 16 inputs and *thankfully* my VS seems to have escaped the recall. If any 2480 users out there think they may have this issue, or would like to check just to make sure, there's an easy test that you can perform yourself in about 20 mins via this site

Even with support being discontinued by the manufacturer, there are lots of users still out there that have came up with great mods and extras that bring the machine up to date (some what), such as the SONG VAULT which allows you to connect a CD / DVD / External hard drive or SD through a SCSI port...or the VIRDIS system which allows for direct track import / export via drive emulation between a computer and the vs (again, via SCSI)...many of these also claim to be compatible with yama, akai, korg and other DAWs, which is good news.

All that being said, I do have a computer as well, although I use it more for my "final stage" of audio production or if I need to do some in-dept wav editing...which the Roland does do FANTASTIC editing for what it is, my only gripe is that the VS shows it's Wav forms as "snap shots" and they don't move with the music at all, which can be tricky for some editing situations.

At times in the past I've thought about giving in to the allure of computer-recording, but have still opted for the Roland. One thing I've heard to beware of when recording solely on a computer is the latency issues (unless you have the proper processor and RAM) which can really slow you down and be a bother when trying to play back 24 (or more) tracks at 24 bits each with 1-2 plug ins running on each track...can add up!

I will also say that the Zoom r16 is a great little machine for portable recording (you can power it with AA batteries!) just pop out the SD card (or plug in the USB) and import the WAVs into reaper, acid, pro-tools. It can also double as a controller too if I'm not mistaken.
 
wjgypsy said:
At times in the past I've thought about giving in to the allure of computer-recording, but have still opted for the Roland. One thing I've heard to beware of when recording solely on a computer is the latency issues (unless you have the proper processor and RAM) which can really slow you down and be a bother when trying to play back 24 (or more) tracks at 24 bits each with 1-2 plug ins running on each track...can add up!
Click to expand...

Latency is a non-issue for most users once they get things properly set up.
 
Aye, a lot has changed in computers. I don't remember the last time I gave a thought to latency and I just have a decent computer and a basic enough motu interface.
 
Absolutely! I still have a lot of legacy digital tape, and video tape, and anything to do with tape now just annoys me. waiting a couple of minutes to go back to the start, or waiting just a second or two to go from rewind to play or record drive me mad now, yet before, it was OK. As audio nowadays is so transparent, and we spend hours on forums deciding if the tiny noise was a gnat farting, or an artefact because we dropped a bit depth from 32 bit floating down to a mere 16 bits. On tape, getting to the end of a three minute track without a tiny head lift or dropout, or in the case of DAT, the total loss of your audio was the old concern. Now we worry about ridiculous things, because the real job - recording audio properly, just works.
 
wjgypsy said:
At times in the past I've thought about giving in to the allure of computer-recording, but have still opted for the Roland. One thing I've heard to beware of when recording solely on a computer is the latency issues (unless you have the proper processor and RAM) which can really slow you down and be a bother when trying to play back 24 (or more) tracks at 24 bits each with 1-2 plug ins running on each track...can add up!
Click to expand...
Latency for straight audio recording is only an issue for people trying to use their onboard soundcard as an interface. If you have an actual recording interface, it will have the zero latency monitoring built in.

Even if you need to run effects plugins during recording (generally not necessary), computers are so much faster now, so the latency isn't anywhere near the problem it was 10 years ago.
 
I can recommend the Boss BR1600, or the Korg D3200. Both can import and export stuff for editing or whatever, and the Korg has inputs for a mouse and monitor(strongly recommended).
 
Farview said:
Latency for straight audio recording is only an issue for people trying to use their onboard soundcard as an interface. If you have an actual recording interface, it will have the zero latency monitoring built in.
Click to expand...

I saw a lexicon interface recently that was running into a friend's mac causing a sluggish operation at times, but I don't think the mac was at it's best health either, to be fair. You get what you pay for! One would never want to go cheap on the front end of computer recording (interface) or the computer.

Latency has never been an issue (10+ years now) with the Roland!
 
wjgypsy said:
Getting things properly set up, such as a capable Processor with lots of Ram (a decent computer with an audio interface) or building your own, customized for music (recommended)
Click to expand...
Unless you are trying to use an Atom processor in one of those miniature laptops, I don't think it's possible to buy a computer with a processor too slow for audio. I was doing 75+ track mixes on a computer with a pentium dual core with 4 megs of ram.

The huge amounts of ram are only needed when you are running a ton of midi instruments and such. Audio really doesn't take much. The reason you want a separate computer for audio is because all the anti-virus and internet stuff tends to screw with what you are trying to do.
 
wjgypsy said:
I saw a lexicon interface recently that was running into a friend's mac causing a sluggish operation at times, but I don't think the mac was at it's best health either, to be fair. You get what you pay for! One would never want to go cheap on the front end of computer recording (interface) or the computer.

Latency has never been an issue (10+ years now) with the Roland!
Click to expand...
What makes you think it was the interface that was slowing the computer down?

The only real issue I have with the VS series is the 24 bit fixed point mix buss. It's way too easy to run out of headroom, and since it's fixed point, turning down the master doesn't help.

I've had to mix a couple albums that were recorded on those. They sound OK, and work well for what they are. But they are really, really limited in what they can do. But it's more than enough for some people.
 
Farview said:
But they are really, really limited in what they can do.
Click to expand...
Perhaps only by the limitations of the operator. Technology is always out-shining itself, obviously and at the end of the day, if you get something that your ears (and bones) are happy with, I'm satisfied, personally...as most musicians would be, with the exception of the extreme audiophiles. I'm just giving my input to Toddn from an stand-alone DAW point of view, never meant to enter a pissing contest.
 
wjgypsy said:
Perhaps only by the limitations of the operator. Technology is always out-shining itself, obviously and at the end of the day, if you get something that your ears (and bones) are happy with, I'm satisfied, personally...as most musicians would be, with the exception of the extreme audiophiles. I'm just giving my input to Toddn from an stand-alone DAW point of view, never meant to enter a pissing contest.
Click to expand...
No pissing contest. I was just rebutting the out-of-date problems with computer recording that you were mentioning.

I've used the things for capture of live concerts and other location recording, as it is much easier to deal with than the tape decks I used to cart around. They are fine, just really limited compared to what you can do in a computer. If you are just doing your own thing and you naturally work within the boundaries of what it can do, it's perfect.
 
I have a Korg D3200 and a Zoom R16

D3200`s can be picked up for very little these days second hand.
Not quite as trick as the D32 , but pretty useful once you get used to them.
Import and export is easy.
The Zoom is a lovely little thing, but not as versatile as the Korg
Stand alones are a bit old had these days, but in particular if you want to record drums , they are the cheapest way of multi - inputs


The first band in this advert were recorded by me on the d3200 essentially live with vocal overdubs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WMOYezZNcg


its a great rehearsal room tool
 
I have experience with lots of cassette 4-trackers, some reel to reel and the following digital standalones:

Roland VS series (880 and 1880)
Yamaha AW16G
Tascam DP24

Of all these, the Roland was the most powerful, but I found it pretty non-intuitive. It took a good bit to learn it. Once I did, it was ok.
The AW16G was a pretty good compromise between power and ease of use.
The DP24 was an absolute breeze to use (for me) and was the most intuitive digital standalone I've ever seen, IMHO. It wasn't quite as powerful as the others though, with regards to on-board effects, etc., although it did have 8 pres with phantom, which the AW16 didn't have (it had only two I think).

At any rate, I personally think any of these would be more than enough to do what you would want to do. People have a tendency to want wayyyyyyy more than what's necessary to do a job because they want "room to grow," etc. The truth is that very rarely do people end up using a piece of gear to its full potential.

All of these machines have nice on-board effects (the Yami and Roland have the edge in this department) and can be had for a few hundred at this point. If you can't make a nice recording with these machines, the fault doesn't lie with the machine.

I'm definitely with you in that I prefer the workflow of a standalone machine. I have to use a computer set up for my job, but I prefer analog actually (cassette or R2R) when doing my own stuff. Since you mentioned digital machines, I figured you wanted to go that route. If I didn't prefer analog, I would probably still use the Roland VS-1880 or one of the other machines.

Now, of course, a computer system will stomp all over a standalone system when it comes to editing and versatility. I don't think anyone can argue that. But some people (like me) don't like limitless options, and I absolutely hate using a mouse, so I do what I can to avoid it when using my computer. I certainly prefer working away from a computer when recording music.
 
I use tape. Dont know squat about digital computer based recording.

I grew up on cassette porta studios and ended up at half inch 16 track.

I do have however one semi modern digital stand alone recorder.

The Yamaha MD4 minidisc recorder.

Very simple, sounds good and has 4 direct outs which completely bypass the mixer section. They come in the 4 and 8 track version.

They are great for capturing parformances and ideas to later dump into a real tape machine or daw.

Best thing is, they are dirt cheap. You can get them from 50 to 200 bucks.

One thing I really am intersted in is the
Allen and heath ice 16.
One rack unit interface and recorder with 16 analog ins and outs.
It requires a mixer, but you can record 16 tracks at once to a harddrive or sd card and mix them down later.
 
RFR: The A&H unit is indeed interesting but using one is only a smidge away from going PC!

As you say, you need a mixer to drive one (or a bank of preamps) but I would urge caution, the mixer needs 16 "inserts" better Direct Outs to drive the box. Then, how would you mix the resultant? Send the tracks back to the mixer*? How? 16 more line inputs or a heck of a lot of plugging?

MUCH easier and better quality to mix in a DAW.

*I have done some "back of env'" drawings of a switching box that would allow a 16ch mixer with inserts to interface with the recorder. Don't of course have the hardware so I cannot develop it.

Dave.
 
I'm also a DAW type person, but...

Once we're talking about the number of simultaneous tracks the ICE (or othwe digital multi tracks can do, you'll probably want a mixer anyway. A prime reason is for setting up multiple different headphone mixes but faders also make setting up levels much quicker/easier.

In the professional world it is relatively common to use a hardware recorder in live situations where reliability is key--then transfer into a computer for mixing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top