PC + Interface versus Digital recorder

E

enuenu

New member
I am shopping for a laptop/inteface/cubase DAW setup. I was just trying to work out which components to buy when a friend showed me his Boss BR 1600. I just checked out a demo of this bit of gear. It looks like that with a device like this you can do everything a computer/interface/cubase setup can do and then some. An example of extra functionality would be tapping in a drum loop with your fingers, seeing it converted to MIDI and then nudging your hits around.

After seeing a device like this in action I am now wondering if I should get something like this rather than a laptop/interface/cubase setup. Not only do I get the extra functionality such as physical trigger pads, I avoid the whole minefield of compatibility issues that exist in laptop/interface/cubase setups.

What do you think? Which way should I go? Could I use the Boss as an interface anyway and use Cubase if needed?
 
I have been using a BOSS BR 1180CD for the last year or so, after having lots of latency problems with cubsae sl3 and steinbergs M14 interface.

There is no doubt whatsover that these digital recording multitrackers are amazing pieces of technology but they have lots of limitations over a pc based setup. Namely, the amount of tracks you have available.

I have my own soundclick webpage with 5 of my songs on there all recorded completly with the 1180cd, , once finished and mastered you just burn a cd, burn it to your pcs hardrive then convert it to mp3 then upload onto soundclick, , hey presto, , , you have a song on the internet !

However, once i got into it and started learning from my mistakes and improving each song as i went along i realised that the songs would have been so much better if i had more tracks to play with.
I would have liked to have doubled some of the vocals, , recorded individual drum sounds instead of poor repetative drum external machines recorded onto one track, , copying and panning guitar or synth tracks... .the list of tweeks and tricks to get a warmer, bigger sound are endless and unfortunatly not available on a non pc based setup.

I am in the process of building my own DAW now, as i have come to the end of my love affair with the Boss unit. It was fantastic whilst it lasted but the lack of tracks and poor preset mastering tools have now made me realise that i should go back to cubase and get back into the difficult learning curve that i gave up on last year.

For recording a basic four piece band using one track for each instrument, , tes, , they are fine, but if you are going to use any more than 8 or 10, even 12 tracks, then take the plunge and go for the pc based setup.
I know the BR1600 has a lot more tracks, but when i was looking to upgrade to one myself, i realised that you dont actually get 16 tracks. Some of the tracks are already dedicated to things like stereo drums,,down to 14 tracks already, mastering etc gets the available to record trackd down as well.

For some of my songs that used all 8 tracks on my 1180cd i would like to record them properly, , but i know for sure that to get them sounding just as i really like, i am looking at between 20 and 30 individual tracks. This amount of tracks is tiny compared to what a studio would use for a simple 4 piece band setup.
As fantastic as they are, no latency, , plug in and record,, very easy to use, easy to transfer to cd ( if you have the built in cd drive ), , , they are wonderful to work with and take up little space, , but unfortunatly as i have now discovered, , , very lacking if you have a true cision of what your songs should turn out like.
I would suggest going the DAW way, , , unless of course you want to learn the basics on a mutitracker first, then move over to a daw, just like i did, , ,however much i enjoyed my time with the multitracker, , with hindsight, i should have just gone the pc way straight from the off, , which is why i am starting off afresh and building my own daw.
My 1180cd is going on ebay next week, just so that i dont go back to it at the first sign of trouble with cubase, , this time i am going to see it through.

Hope this was of some help to you,
Best regards, kev
 
Thanks a lot, that is exactly the information I was after. The myriad of hardware available is very difficult to categorize without experience. The manufacturers advertise many bits of gear but never present a summary of the applications for various categories of gear for the newb. They seem to assume you already know all the ins and outs. Basically poor communication. You summed it up brilliantly.

I am a digital music newb and I want to start with gear with a lot of technical headroom and not have to start over in 2 years when I discover limitations of my chosen hardware. I will stay on the "computer/interface/cubase" path now as I want no limitations.
 
I am delighted i could be of some help, ,

Its a very steep learning curve getting involved with cubase, but once you have learnt a bit about it, your going to wonder how you managed without it.

I have a laptop with an AMD ATHLON 64 and with 2GB of ram , i thought it would be fine for cubase and my softsyths, but to be honest with you, i have been warned off time and time again about using a laptop for recording, , even if its been optomised solely for music production, , ie, no internet or email, lots of services disabled, , purely functional for recording, , but still not the best choice apparently. Even the hardive speeds are slower than desktops, , , the list goes on !
I have decided to make my own DAW, from scratch, but whilst buying the bits and bobs bit by bit, i have come up with a much better idea than having 2 desktops littering the place up.
My pc that i am going to make is going to be powerful enough to run cubase and all my softsyths and vsti effects, , , and, second up as my daily use pc.

Again, there is a brigade of do gooders that will go nausious at the thought of having a daily use internet pc double up as a DAW, , but it will work, and thankfully i have heard from many people who have a similar set up that i am planning on.
I have an ASUS P5Q PRO motherboard that will support from pentuim 4, pentium D right up to the latest quad core processors on the 775 socket, meaning i can use my presnt Pentium D dual core 3.4ghz cpu until i can afford a faster core 2 duo, or quad core.
I also have 4gb of GEIL PC2 8500 ram, , more than enough for my intentions (perhaps even overkill ),,, 32 bit vista or xp will only recognise just over 3gb though. If i go for a 64bit operating system i will be able to have 8gb of ram, , but then , , not all my softsynths or cubase for that matter, will run on 64bits, , so am sticking with 32bit and just over 3gb of ram for now.

The MB also has 2 firewire 800 ports, meaning that i can upgrade from my steinberg M14 usb interface to a decent 4 x faster firewire interface.
I cant advise on firewire devices as i havent yet reached that point, , but starting off with a firewire device is essential these days, , no one uses anything but firewire. If they are still using usb interfaces, then like me, they are looking to go up to firewire.
Hopefully i will be able to get it all up and running within the month and then i can start re-recording both my present 5 songs on soundclick , , and the next batch of 5 or 6 that i am urgently waiting to get recording.

Go have a listen to the songs i recorded with my BOSS 1180 machine, , , just google " kevin paul coughlan " and i should come up first, at the top of the search, , have a listen, let me know what you think, then go back in a few months time when i have re-recorded a few of them, and this whole discussion will start to make complete sense ! !
I am no expert by any choice of meaning, , but feel free to contact me if you want any help or advice from a fellow novice.

Good luck, kev
 
Did you end up getting the laptop/interface/cubase DAW?

My comment comes late I know, but I started out 12 years ago as an analog cassette multitracker. Then upgraded to digital standalone recorders. Now I use a mix of all of them.

I own a Tascam 2488MKII, where I record my 8 tracks of drums.

To record guitars, bass and vocals, I use a laptop + interface + Cool Edit pro rig.

I mix on a desktop using Cool Edit pro.

I think it's not an either or situation, both systems work. You can't have it all in one system. That's why I have both:D

Cheers!
 
I've never recorded straight to a DAW, but I've used a stand-alone for years (the very old VS880) and, yes, as Kev says, the track limit is a pain but it's workable. And it's never frozen, crashed or glitched on me.
What I did was to record everything I could on six of the the eight tracks I had, bounce that down to two (kind of a stereo scratch track) & then I had 6 more. Repeat as needed. :D
I then got the tracks into my computer (no easy task with that model) & edited and mixed the individual tracks with Audition. Worked very well for me, but everyone works differently. I liked it enough that I just replaced the ol' girl with a Yamaha AW1600.
Working with Acid or samples, well that works just fine staying in the computer.

My $.02

(as I re-read this, I noticed the thread I am replying to is, um, a bit old. Oh well. Like it says under my name - newbie)
 
Last edited:
I starting using a VS1680 around the beginning of 2000, and back then I would have said that was the way to go for home recording. It was the greatest thing since sliced bread back then, but times have changed. I can do so much more, so much easier, with a $50 copy of Reaper and a $300-500 interface than I could have ever done with that 1680. I don't factor in the cost of the computer simply because I, and many others, are going to have one regardless. But just the screen size alone.... I just picked up a Dell 24" 16x9 monitor, and let me tell you, this is how it is supposed to be done. The work flow is second to none. I got fairly good at the finger gymnastics on the 1680, but keyboards are second nature.

You can do all that MIDI stuff on your computer.
 
I'll take a DAW on a computer any day.The ability to use a large monitor and mouse, plus all the software plugins that are available make a DAW so much more powerful. Editing is much tougher on those little hardware recorders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top