Is there a computer system equivalent to a tape-based multitrack recorder?

[Esquire]

I've been using a Tascam tape-based multitrack recorder to make my mixes. I'm interested in replacing the Tascam w/a computer-based system. Is there user-friendly software that will allow me to do the same things that I do w/the Tascam. I understand that the software uses a non-linear method of recording, but the various software descriptions appear to target those looking to single song compositions, as opposed to hour-long mixes. The following are some initial questions that I have. Any help/advice you can lend is greatly appreciated.
1) Many of the software packages that I've seen advertise up to 64 "tracks." Does this mean that I can record only 64 "sounds/samples" and arrange them as I please, or can I record several "sounds/samples" on each track. For example, suppose that I am limited to 8 tracks. I record 8 songs, one on each track. Can I go back to the first track and record another song on that track without erasing the song that was recorded earlier on that track?

2) I've also run into audio interfaces that have analog/digital inputs/outputs. Do these interfaces replace the need for a sound card? After finishing a mix, is there a way to simply mix down on the computer, convert the file to .wav format, and burn to CD? Or, will I need to output the file from my computer to a separate recording device?

3) I've read that there is a delay problem when recording to computer. On the Tascam I would simply throw a new song over an old one and the Tascam would record it when thrown in. If I attempt to do this with a computer-based system. Will I have to throw it in, then edit it later to make sure the beats match? Or, is there some way that I can hear that song is on beat while both playing the existing song and recording the new song that I am throwing in?

4) What about digital multitrack recorders? They appear to function similar to the software-based systems. Basically, I'm looking to increase the number of tracks I can work with, without sacrificing the intuitive nature of a tape-based system.

Thanks!!!

 

[Gidge]

1) I really dont understand this question completely....64 tracks means the same as the tracks on your 4 track recorder...you can combine them, but you probably wont need to....You prob wont get to 64 tracks anyway

2)soundcard, by definition has audio inputs/outputs and an onboard synth, a card like Soundblasters, Turtle Beach's, and prob the one that came with your computer...audio interfaces are more pro-sumer type cards that deal with audio only usually, but are of better quality...cards made by Echo, Delta, Aardvark,etc....you can mix completely in software, mixdown, and burn....nothin else needed....

3) you are referring to latency...depending on the power of your computer and the quality of the card, you may experience a little, but with the right equipment, it will be almost non-existant....

4)Digital multitrackers are fine....more portable than a computer, but less upgradable...what you get is what you get....

 

[AlChuck]

Many of the software packages that I've seen advertise up to 64 "tracks." Does this mean that I can record only 64 "sounds/samples" and arrange them as I please, or can I record several "sounds/samples" on each track. For example, suppose that I am limited to 8 tracks. I record 8 songs, one on each track. Can I go back to the first track and record another song on that track without erasing the song that was recorded earlier on that track?

I'm a bit confused by your question. Why would you have a separate song on each track? You wouldn't do that with the tape-based system. Maybe you really mean track, as in a guitar part or a vocal or even maybe a submixed part with several things going on.

Anyway, yes, each track is conceptually equivalent to a tape track. You can record straight into one, or several at once (depending on how many inputs your audio hardware has, of course), and you can also typically import audio recorded elsewhere, short or long.

An hour, though, of 64 or more tracks is going to start taking up serious disk space. At a rough approximation of 5 MB/minute for 16-bit/44.1 kHz audio (a.k.a. "CD-quality"), let's see, an hour is 60 minutes so that's 300 MB per track, so 64 tracks would be 19,200 MB -- 19 GB. Now 30-GB drives and larger are readily available and pretty inexpensive, but you just have to be aware of the storage requirements for an hour of audio.

I've also run into audio interfaces that have analog/digital inputs/outputs. Do these interfaces replace the need for a sound card? After finishing a mix, is there a way to simply mix down on the computer, convert the file to .wav format, and burn to CD? Or, will I need to output the file from my computer to a separate recording device?

The terminolgy here is a little bit vague. If all you want to do is record audio, an audio-only interface is all you need. If you need a MIDI interface you can add a separate one, or get one of the many devices that have both audio and MIDI i/o in the same device. Finally, if you need a synth in the computer as well, you need some kind of device that include this as well. The term "sound card" is often used loosely to describe any of these kinds of devices. The consumer models like the Sound Blaster typically have all three of these features -- analog (and maybe digital) audio in and out, MIDI in and out, and an on-board synth/sampler.

I've read that there is a delay problem when recording to computer. On the Tascam I would simply throw a new song over an old one and the Tascam would record it when thrown in. If I attempt to do this with a computer-based system. Will I have to throw it in, then edit it later to make sure the beats match? Or, is there some way that I can hear that song is on beat while both playing the existing song and recording the new song that I am throwing in?

(Here's that odd use of "song" again... ) Typically no, the latency is not a major factor, it's usually negligible.

What about digital multitrack recorders? They appear to function similar to the software-based systems. Basically, I'm looking to increase the number of tracks I can work with, without sacrificing the intuitive nature of a tape-based system.

That's a way to go. They are essentially dedicated recording computers with built-in mixers, etc. So you get
the feel of real sliders and knobs at every stage. But if you already have a good mixer, it's likely that a PC would be a better solution.

 

[RWhite]

I'll just address your first question, since the other guys answered your other questions fine.

The terms "track" and "channel" are sometimes used a big loosely. If you are using a computer based system there are really three characteristics of importance -

1) How many new signals can be recorded to seperate tracks at one time. This is limited by how many INPUTS your recording hardware has.
2) How many seperate, individually adjustable signals can be monitored / played back. This is limited to the number of OUTPUTS your hardware has.
3) How many seperate audio tracks can be included in a particular project. This is limited by what your software supports, and how beefy your computer is.

To put this in a real world example, I am using a Gadget Labs card which has 8 inputs and 8 outputs. So the largest number of new seperate signals I can record is 8. And the largest number of seperate audio streams I can play back is also 8. However my software (Cakewalk) supports up to 256 audio tracks in a project (whether my computer could handle 256 tracks is another issue). And each of these tracks can be assigned to any output. So I may have 16 tracks recorded, want to add more, and I could do it by assigning each of the current 16 tracks to outputs 1 and 2 (to give me a stereo playback mix) leaving 6 outputs and all 8 inputs free as I add more while hearing what I have already recorded.

Furthermore if you are using a mixer as your input device you have many more monitoring options as you can monitor inputs dirrectly from the board.

Hope that makes sense....