Digital recording alternatives

P

phatstadt

New member
Can someone explain in easy terms the main alternatives for digital recording?
The way I understand it there is 3 alternatives:

1. Roland VS1680 or equivalent,i.e. all in one box. Does this mean that all my analog effect racks are useless (assuming I buy the effects card) Also, how do you mix down? Do you have to use 2 of the 16 tracks so you really only have 14? Given that all the controls are accessible one track at a time on the screen, you really don't have any "physical" controls (except fader), only volume, not even pan pot? Isn't this a negative, especially for straight live mixing where you're busy with your instruments and don't want to be bothered with interacting with the screen?

2. A Digital mixing board and a digital recording device (computer or adat). This seems like a better alternative for live playing (it offers physical controls) but what about effects? Do you then need to buy a whole bunch of racks? Can my existing analog racks be inserted? Isn't this a more flexible alternative than 1) yet you don't lose any functionality? Is the cost higher for same quality? Does the mixing board truly act as a standalone mixing board for live gigs?

3) Full computer-based recording.
I don't totally understand where to draw the line between 2) and 3). Can you do computer recording without a "physical" digital mixing board? Does that mean that the mixing board is 100% on the computer display and controlled with a mouse? What about effects? How do you funnel 16 inputs into the computer for live performance (without recording)? This seems like maybe the most powerful for recording, but the least friendly for live playing?

Also, is there typical effects that are of better quality as analog? Are there effects that have to be "in-line" such as noise gates and compressors before getting into the board?

I guess lots of questions. What I'm solving for is a system that is truly digital quality with a nice physical console for no-hassle live playing. What are the cost implications?

Any suggestions?

Sorry about the length...
 
You basically got it. ADAT, computer, or digital multitrack. They all have their up's and downs. I have a Roland 1680, but I also have experience with ADAT's. For live recording, it is nice to just flip the switch on a mixer, butonce you get to know the 1680, all the controlls are well organized. For example, if you want to access the panpot, you hit the button for the track you want, then the pan button (or scrolll over) and ajust it as you see fit. It only take s a few seconds. The VS machines are a lot more portable than ADAT's, if you can live with recording only 8 tracks at a time.
 
Hi, phatstadt. I've gone the full computer-based recording route. I already had the computer, and heard it could be converted into a recording facility, and thought 'okay, I'll add the bits I need and have some tracks ready for this year's John Lennon Songwriting Contest'. (insert sound of large gong here) - Wronnnnng! It seems like every problem requires two things to solve: loads of time to learn, and money for every solution. I don't know anything about VS and adat, but recently when I look at those tidy, ready-to-roll packages, I think 'gee, *that* would be nice'. It's been a month since I got my sound card and mixer, and I still haven't got all the bits working together well, still haven't started learning how to use the software, still haven't recorded a track. My original intention was to record my music, but I'm spending all my time these days with my face stuck in computer, having to deal with technical problems I have no experience of. Biased conclusion: I think if you like the computer/technical side of things, and if you have experience of installing hardware and software and dealing with the inevitable difficulties that involves, and if you've got some money, and if you're happy recording at home, then the full computer-based route is fine. If I'd gone the adat route, everything would work out of the box, and I could have spent all this time learning how to use it. The situation I'm in now seems like this: before I get to drive the car, I have to put it together. ('Now, let's see, where's the distributor go? Hey, anybody know what's the difference between a distributor and a carburetor? It says here I need a carburetor.') :)
 
This is good reading. I must say I would have agreed with last reply only three weeks ago however, now, I can't agree that a PC based outfit is as bad it sounds. first I would say that your priorities need to guide you here. If you are already PC literate from other applications, putting a well thought out package should not be a problem. However if you are'nt and you are a performing player in need of a self contained package, #2 choice may be the ticket, but there are real disadvantages there too (Expandability?) I don't know this for sure but check Dragons sermon on Digital math 101 in this site re: compression on self contained units. This may affect your priorities some. My last note re: computers is a fundamental PC debate: MAC vs PC.
If you want to enter into this area with the least headaches, give MACs a serious look. They are known for user friendiness. There is good software and hardware available that is truely plug and play. There is a current drawback (for the moment only) MIDI is not compatible with USB, MACs only available means of connecting to printers and would-be MIDI interfaces. I don't know what to say here except I'm certain there are PCI boards that can add (old style, and perfectly compatible)
Serial ports to your setup.
Lets hear how you wind up with this.
 
You must mean:

"MIDI is not compatible with USB in a Mac environment"

USB is a serial communication standard with far greater bandwidth than that required by MIDI. In fact the Roland UA-100, a USB device handles both digital audio and 2 ports of MIDI I/O.
 
Ummm.... I dont know for sure what the deal is re: USB. But my understanding is that in either case, (Wintel PCs or MAC platform), simply puting some adapter (serial>USB or Parallel>USB) in line between a MIDI Device and the computer will not work. I don't know squat about the Roland that was mentioned. If, drstawl the person, who mentioned that it was a USB MIDI device, could please elaborate on where it is USB (connecting PC?) It may have innards designed to use USB in a way standard MIDI devices don't have. I would love to really get to the bottom this. Just for my own knowledge.
 
The Roland UA-100 connects to a PC via a USB port. MIDI data can then be sent from the computer to an external synth module or from a MIDI controller (keyboard/guitar-MIDI converter/other sequencer) to the computer.
And it handles two ports in either direction, which allows the use of 32 different channels. Currently I use a Music Quest 2Port/SE which does the same thing but uses the (sigh) parallel port. The audio section of the UA-100 handles a mono line in and a single stereo pair of outputs.
The Music Quest 2Port/SE has no digital audio capability.
I think your confusion stems from the fact that both USB and MIDI are serial communication protocols, but you can't just plug a MIDI connector into a USB port or vice-versa and expect anything to work. The USB protocol is much more generic than the MIDI protocol. You can connect scanners, digital cameras, printers, even digital speakers via a USB connection.
 
So then, is it safe to assume that a user with a computer of any type, (mac or pc) with USB ports, can't simply plug a standard MIDI interface into it using converters (USB>serial)?
What you say about protocols sounds similar to what I've been finding out too. There is an issue of random sending of data (USB) and nonrandom clocked data sending (MIDI) that seems to be the rub.
I read somewhere that if digital audio was developed before MIDI, [MIDI] wouldn't have come along at all. It'll be interesting to see if MIDI becomes a serious bottleneck as things continue. ARrg!!! All the gear to think of replacing.
 
MIDI will never be a bottleneck because it's inherently 1000 times more efficient than
digital audio transfer of similar quality to that available at the output of the MIDI controlled synth.
 
Hey if phatstadt is still looking in here, sure enough as drstawl has been saying, Mark o unicorn has a whole line of USB type MIDI interfaces, some available for wintel pcs some aren't ready yet. So it seems that USB is the last thing to wory about. Sorry for the alarm.
This still does'nt take back my opinion of MACs as a viable no hassle way into the technology of Digital recording.
 
The MIDI issue is a complete mystery to me... But I think it is safe to say that with the prices of fast PC's plummeting... Roland should be worried...
I can't think of a reason not to go with a PC based system... Unless you live in a van down by the river...
And by the way... The learning curve with computers isn't THAT steep...
Every music store I go into is trying to pawn off those Rolands like they think that they may get stuck with 'em...
Two years ago they looked like a good idea... today, no.
Just another opinion,
S8-N

P.S. I'll bet that in a year or so, those thousand dollar rolands are going for under $400... Just a prediction...
 
Well... I went the VS1680. More precisely, I was 'forced' to as my wife surprised me by getting one for me for my birthday. In a sense, she made my life easier by making the decision for me.
Now, after 3 weeks of using it, at first, I disliked very much the small black & white screen, but... I now think that unit is just extremely slick.
You can punch in -out, put markers and scroll
to the exact insert point, have billions of high quality built in effects. The ergonomics of the keys, if you're more interested in beeing a musician recording music that an engineer using computers to recored music, are just top notch.
It's portable, I can take my VS an move upstairs to record on the acoustic piano if I want, or go to my friend singer to tape a vocal track. I can't see myself doing the same by carrying a computer wherever I go.
It's kinda like the same analogy as the $99 Sony PlayStation that still runs better quality graphics games than a $5,000 fine-tuned computer where you have to spend hours with hardware, and little time playing. I'm an engineer/programmer, I know computers in an out, but when it's time to play and make music, I can't be bothered.
I'll probably end up with Cakewalk and a Pentium IV ot V, or the next name, in a couple of years, when the stuff is really plug and play. In the meantime, I'll play.

PH
 
S8-N, I think you are wrong about re-sale prices of the satand alone units. 5 years from now, practically nobody will be able to buy the current VS and Akai Korg worksations for less than 50% of the current retail price. Simply put no one will be selling those units for a less price.

They will lose some resale value and then just stay there for years and years and years. I still cannot buy a used 4 track CASSETTE unit for less than $300 Cdn even if it is 15 yrs old and broken. Their value just does not drop after a while.

Computers on the other hand have resale values that plummet, and then just keep on plummeting. A new $2000 computer system will sell for $70 in 5 years. The monitor and the printer will keep its value best but still will only have about 20% of it's original retail value. The actual computer will keep about 0% to 5% of it's value.

The innovation in computers is just too great to buy 4 yr old stuff, so no one will. Those wanting to sell will be very hard pressed to find buyers, so te price will fall even further.
But the stand alones will fare much better. 25 yr old analogue reel to reels still sell for hundreds of dollars, sometimes thousands. A 25 yr old computer? A 10 yr old computer? Worthless.
 
I have an iMac 233 mHz running Opcode's OMS software and Vision DSP, and a MIDIMan MIDISport 2x2 USB-MIDI interface. Once the initial (and inevitable) phase of learning the software, and the struggle of dealing with companies who are still trying to figure out this USB jazz was over (took about six months), my USB-MIDI is running quite nicely, as well as the digitizing of MIDI tracks into 16 bit digital audio and syncing the whole mess together to resemble a song.

Of course, shortly after I bought my MIDIMan USB port, Opcode came out with that damn Stealth Port, designed for blue G3's and iMacs, which bypasses USB altogether and uses your modem port. Sigh. Isn't that always the way?!?
 
By the way, I was confused by the comment that you can't run printers, PDAs, scanners, etc. from USB. All the iMac HAS is USB connections, and I run my keboard/mouse, an external Zip drive, an old HP Desk Jet 600 (via a serial adapter), a USB CD burner and my MIDI ... all from USB. I'll agree with anybody who says USB stinks on ice, but it can be done, and done just fine. And evidently, the USB connections on a PC work even better, because I usually see the PC/USB versions of ANYTHING come out months before their Mac counterparts do. And the USB on a PC is also capable of digitizing audio -- there's already a USB interface out for PC-to-DAT connections.
 
Hi Mathew,
excuse the correction, but if your referring to drstawl's note about printers etc,
he said "can" not cannot" no confusion there.
by the way if anyone is interestedin following the development of this USB/MIDI thing I understand that there is a well written article on subject by Scott Wilkinson on USB interfaces for MIDI/music use in the latest issue of "Desktop Musician Production Guide"
published by ELECTRONIC MUSICIAN.
I'm forwarding this info from a note I received online. So I'd like to hear if anyones read it already.
 
Whoops; reading with a lisp again! Sorry about that outburst! I agree with your assertion, bpmufx, that the Mac's a viable recording option. Even if you can't afford a sound card, you got built in stereo ins and outs (which is me: the cheapskate!) and even if you despise MIDI with a passion, you can still set yourself up with Pro Tools and record stuff. My goal was to get away with doing it all for under two grand and augment my MIDI stack with a "quality" recording and mastering setup, which I did with the iMac.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top