Why record with a computer when there are all-in-one portastudios?

[mbrusko]

As a total newbie to home recording (been at it about three years) I gotta admit I'm baffled at how many more people do this with computers than with standalone portastudios like the 2488neo that I'm learning on.

It can't be a money thing. A Mac alone costs two or three times what my neo cost.

It can't be flexibility, either. In addition to a library of fully editable onboard fx, the neo (and, I assume, similar machines) can accommodate as many outboard rack units as you want to daisy chain together.

Sound quality doesn't seem to be an issue, either way.

So, what's the attraction, DAW users?

FYI I'm not asking for an argument. I truly am curious. I have the money to spend on more toys, and I have the passion to stay at this and hopefully someday get as good at it as the many HR.com folks who've lent me their opinions on posted MP3s.

But before I get too much further in, I want to be sure I'm not missing some glaringly obvious reason why I should abandon the neo.

Oh ... and if this subject has been beaten to death in a past string, just let me know and I'll go there.

 

[Ethan Winer]

A computer offers better editing on a larger screen, the ability to expand the number of inputs and outputs if needed, being able to use any plug-in that works with your DAW, and the ability to easily upgrade the software or even switch brands. I'm sure there are other advantages but these are off the top of my head. Oh yeah, a computer is also cheaper assuming you already have a computer for other stuff. Even a budget PC these days is more than up to the task.

--Ethan

 

[Lt. Bob]

As a total newbie to home recording (been at it about three years) I gotta admit I'm baffled at how many more people do this with computers than with standalone portastudios like the 2488neo that I'm learning on.

It can't be a money thing. A Mac alone costs two or three times what my neo cost.

It can't be flexibility, either. In addition to a library of fully editable onboard fx, the neo (and, I assume, similar machines) can accommodate as many outboard rack units as you want to daisy chain together.

Sound quality doesn't seem to be an issue, either way.

So, what's the attraction, DAW users?

FYI I'm not asking for an argument. I truly am curious. I have the money to spend on more toys, and I have the passion to stay at this and hopefully someday get as good at it as the many HR.com folks who've lent me their opinions on posted MP3s.

But before I get too much further in, I want to be sure I'm not missing some glaringly obvious reason why I should abandon the neo.

Oh ... and if this subject has been beaten to death in a past string, just let me know and I'll go there.

well, I don't record to a puter and use a mostly analog setup BUT, a lot of what you're saying is wrong.

The library of effects is tiny in that neo compared to what's available as plug-ins and the neo's fx aren't as good sounding or as flexible as an awful lot of plug ins.
And daisy chaining fxs doesn't really let you do the same as if you're using plug ins. Plus to daisy chain FXs means you have to invest in hardware fx units.
But daisy chaining isn't an answer.
What if you want a speacial comp on one channel but don't want that outboard delay? Can't daisy chain and get one but not the other.
Or let's say you want a different fx on every channel ...... can't really do that with a neo .... there's limits to how many you can use at once and, as I said, some of them don't even sound that great.

There's lots more you can do with a puter than with the neo.

Not to put down on the Neo by the way ..... great unit for a bargain price.
But a puter allows for far more flexibility and an entire universe of plug-ins.

 

[Farview]

There is never a reason to abandon what works for you. But the track count limit is enough to keep me from using one of those.

I have many projects that require more than 100 tracks of audio and then a couple dozen tracks of midi on top of that.

Editing is clunky at best on most of those all in one units. quantizing audio with time stretching is impossible afaik.

With an all in one unit, you can't upgrade the interface. My system has 32 analog ins and outs. Some are permanently set up as effects sends and returns. I need to record up to 24 tracks at a time every once in a while.

With an all in one unit, once something on it breaks, you have to dump your whole system. In order to upgrade, you have to dump the entire system and learn a new one. With a computer, you can upgrade everything individually as you need/want to.

There are dozens of other reasons, but all of them depend on what you use it for. If the all in one thing works for you, rock on.

 

[Lt. Bob]

Yeah, I think it's important to repeat that nothing I said is a reason for you to "abandon the Neo".
They have a lot of capability and depending on what you're doing are perfectly adequate for the job.
But a 'puter can simply do a LOT more.
You might not need more though which is why I say keep on with the Neo if it does what you need.

 

[Doctor Varney]

Is this a trap?

 

[TimOBrien]

The nice thing about a computer DAW is that you can expand it, update it and add all the plugins and toys you want.
When you buy a hardware recorder, what you have is all you'll ever get.

.....but you can do whatever you want. The important thing is getting projects done.

 

[Chili]

OMG, just seeing the timeline stretched across a screen was enough to convince me. Not some tiny little monitor that had to share the view space with everything else. what I remember from the old Roland VS-840 that I had, everything was buried in menus. So difficult to navigate to do anything. Nothing was intuitive for me.

The ease of editing alone is worth the pain of switching. Plus, no standalone can run UAD plugs!!!

 

[Doctor Varney]

Well, personally, I started off with a computer - and I hated it. But to be fair, it was actually the thing which gave me the idea to record in the first place and if it wasn't for that, I might never have got into it. Of course, the results were not great using a battered old laptop and a £5.99 mic from the cheapo shop. But once I got past Audacity and into a fully fledged DAW, I grew tired with the required steps needed to get a signal in and record very simple material. After I got onto the desktop system, I was experiencing troubles with drivers and settings etc... After so much downtime, troubleshooting computer issues, instead of recording, I decided to look into porta-studios.

So I bode my time and kept my eyes open. Then, suddenly up came a used Fostex MR-8 MKII unit for £50 in pristine condition, with a three month warranty and 7 day, no quibble money back gaurantee in my local pawn brokers. So I went for it and I've never looked back. Recording is actually exciting for once, since I don't have to look at a screen or worry if all my 'virtual connections' are set up properly or if my drivers are up to scratch. It's as simple as that old cassette recorder I had when I was kid, which I annoyed the hell out of my parents with. It's brought me peace, knowing I can take it into virtually any room and just hit a button and... hey presto. Recording is so easy and hassle free with this thing, it's obscene!

As much as I'd like to, it's impossible to abandon the computer altogether, because of course, there is editing to be done and FX to be applied. Then the finals must be mastered, burned and distributed. This I can only do effectively on a computer. So it could be argued, that while a Porta studio might be all one needs, for all it's baggage, it's the computer which has spawned such interest and accessibility in modern home recording.

The MR-8 still is a computer - but being hard wired for one task, isn't going to suffer with the same ills as a multi-tasking desktop computer with 'runtime tasks' and an AV flapping around in the background. When it's broke, it's broke and I shall get a new one. With a computer, I'm never sure which part is acting up, because there are just so many possible causes of error - until of course, I grow to be more skilled in computer maintenance.

But to go analogue - well, I think that's got to be a rich man's hobby - and a love. This old gear is now a niche interest, with prices to match. For many, it wouldn't be worth the extra hassle when one can (usually) fire up the family computer, download Reaper and have a go.

And I'll admit, the stand-alone unit I'm using is incredibly limited compared with the tools, timeline and plugins I have on my computer. As I said, I use it for convenience and simplicity and because I don't need anything fancy, until I come to make detailed edits and add some polish.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[witzendoz]

People use computers to record as a punishment for their sins.

I resisted for a long time happily using a 16 track tape machine and analog console, but then I realised that I needed to be punished and started using computers in the studio.



Just joking. However I think that if you are not computer minded and just require the recording of you song ideas for demos I would use a stand alone recording device that lets you get on with the song writing and recording side of your creativity instead of learning about computer issues and software.
Alan.

 

[Armistice]

"Why record with an all-in-one portastudio when there are computers?" is the way you should be asking the question these days....

There are reasons, but not as many as, say, 10 years ago. I'm sure my fellow posters have clued you in on some of them.

Why use an abacus when we have calculators?

Plus, I have a dislike of using anything with "porta" in its name.... reminds me of portaloos and portapotties....

 

[mixsit]

I'd break it down even further to components vs 'all in one's at whatever level.
Pre's or mixers, compressors maybe > to A/D and D/A converters > to sound card > to recorder (be it HDR' or DAW
Vs 'Interfaces > to recorder etc.
Vs 'all in one.
Flexibility, room for growth/expansion.. A little bit less reliance on one piece faulting perhaps

 

[Bobbsy]

As others have said, if the Neo works for you go for it. Enjoying recording music is more important than the technology is.

However, my reasons for using a computer DAW are much as the others:

-Screen size--I presently use two screens, my basic 15 inch laptop and a 22 inch VGA. I sometimes wish I had even more space.

-Track count--my present set up can record up to 32 tracks at one time and a typical project can go to rather more than that.

-Flexibility--despite what you say I can choose from a virtually unlimited number of downloadable VST effects, many being fully professional.

-Cost. I need a computer anyway for other things I do, including live sound playback in theatres. I only have to add the cost of the DAW.

-Compatibility. Not for everyone but I frequently exchange raw tracks and stems with others or submit trial stuff to clients.

-Familiarity. A personal thing but I've been doing computer sound since 1996.

So, as you can see, some of those are specific to me, others are more general.

 

[Doctor Varney]

Why use an abacus when we have calculators?

I use an abacus. To some extent, it helped my dyscalculia to find an alternative way to view numbers.

Plus, I have a dislike of using anything with "porta" in its name.... reminds me of portaloos and portapotties....

Still, it makes a great reverb chamber...

 

[mjbphotos]

I tried using my computer (a couple of computers ago) to record. Using (free) Audacity and a Soundblaster card. The latency and the plugins so bad, I gave up quickly. I did a little reading and knew, at the time, computer recording was not for me. I bought a Boss BR600 recorder. Up to 64 tracks, (but only really 6 at a time - 2 stereo - can be used, requiring lots of bouncing). It got my feet wet and I did my whole first CD on it. 'Riding the faders' during mixdowns worked -to an extent - but listening to what I did then NOW, I hear a ton of room for improvement, but I've moved on and those songs will stay as they are.
When I moved up to Reaper a whole world opened up for me! Automation! Routing! 1 FX on one track and a different one on another!

When the Boss recorder crapped out on me (unknown to me, as I had bought it used), the power supply was the wrong voltage and eventually fried something on the power input side. $75 (plus shipping) and a month later I was back in business. Backing up tracks to the computer was time-consuming, to say the least.
With the computer, backing up files is as easy as backing up ANY computer files. If the computer craps out on me, I head over to Best Buy or Staples and get a new one. Download Reaper again. Move the backed-up files into the new computer, I'm back in business in less than a day.

 

[famous beagle]

I think it's funny that people are arguing cost and flexibility/track count as both benefits of a computer. That's extremely misleading. Let's say that you don't need to buy a computer because you already have one. That's already assuming a lot, because most people will also tell you that your music computer should be dedicated only to that. Nonetheless, let's say that you don't have to buy a computer. In order to do things like "record 32 tracks at once" (as Bobbsy mentioned), you'd need:

A 32-channel A/I or 32 channels combined of A/I!
Now I'm no computer recording expert. I like analog for my own stuff, but I have a small DAW rig for my work for the editing features. I put that together with an $80 Dell and an M-Audio Delta 1010LT (8 in, 8 out) A/I for $200 (new). And that's all I've needed because I was able to use the mixer from my analog rig. So I have no idea how much 32 channels of A/I cost, but I can't imagine it's cheap. I don't even know if you could use 4 separate Delta 1010LT's to do that (like I said, I'm no expert). But even if you could, and you bought them used (about $75 on ebay), that alone would put you at $300.

Then you'd also need a mixer (I'm assuming) or a shitload of mic pres if you're wanting to record 32 channels at once. That would cost a pretty penny: I'd say at least $500 (I'm guessing) if you go used. The Mackie 32/8, for example, usually fetches about $600 or $700 on ebay in good working condition.

Then there's the cost of the DAW software. If you go with the non-commercial license of Reaper, that's $60 currently.

Then there's the cost of any plug-ins that you use, unless you go all freeware. That is possible; that's what I've done, with the exception of EZ Drummer and several of the expansion kits. With that, I've spent about $200 total on plug-ins. However, as anyone else here will attest, when you start talking about UAD plug-ins and crap like that, you're talking more like $600 - $1000 a pop (or more). However, like I said, it is perfectly possible to do everything with freeware, so I won't add any cost here.

The 2488 neo goes for about $350 or $375 these days on ebay including shipping. You can barely get the audio interfaces for that (I don't think). And you won't even come close if you want to use what people consider "really good ones."

The thing is, though, people are talking about the ability to use different effect(s) on every track, etc. And if you're talking about something with 32 or more tracks going, you're going to need a serious machine to handle that without any glitches or latency. So the idea of "using whatever computer you already have" would almost certainly not work for that kind of power.

Of course, the 2488 neo doesn't have that kind of power. You can't record 32 tracks at once, use "limitless" (with limits, of course) effects, etc.

Here's my take on it:

1 For editing, the CPU wins hands down. There's nothing (at this point) easier than seeing a big clear wav file and cutting, pasting, dragging, etc. with your mouse.

2 For dependability and ease of use, the portastudio wins hands down. There's nothing more frustrating than tracking down a CPU issue related to some driver/upgrade/compatibility issue. I'm not even an avid computer user, and I've already run into wayyyy more problems in my 3 years with it than I ever did in my decades of portastudio usage (that includes cassette, mini disc, and hard disc). The portastudio may be limited, but that's also its strength in the fact that you don't ever have to mess with it. (This is of course assuming that it continues to function correctly, but that also applies to every aspect of a CPU system, so it's a moot point.)

3 For aesthetics and feel, IMO the portastudio wins. There are few things more frustrating than mixing with a mouse. It just downright sucks. Of course, you can use digital mixers or control surfaces to get around this, but then you're adding a lot more money to the CPU system.

4 For flexibility/expandability, the CPU wins hands down, as the portastudio generally doesn't have any. However, this does come at a price (see #2).

5 For portability, the portastudio wins (duh). While you can take a laptop on location, you still have to deal with the A/I at the very least if you plan to use the mic pres in it. The Tascam 2488 neo at least has 4 XLR inputs with phantom built in.

6 For backing up of data, the CPU wins. It's a bit more of a pain with the porta setup for sure.

So, while the OP's question was a little vague and incomplete, I think some of the responses here have been slanted as well. To me, the biggest advantage the portastudio has over the CPU is stability and reliability. Once you learn it, you don't have to f*ck with anything else anymore. With the CPU, every time you add a new piece of hardware or software, there comes the possibility of trouble. That's already been a huge thorn in my side.

 

[Bobbsy]

Just for the record, I use my computer for both live sound playback in theatres and for the production of music and sound effects in my home studio. You mention reliability and stability...but in the 15 or so years I've been using computers in this way, I've not had a single crash that affected my tracking or playback. Prior to going computer, I used CDs and then Minidisks and both those failed on more than one occasion.

As for aesthetics and feel, I didn't mention but my system involves using a digital mixer (Yamaha DM1000) which is fed into my DAW via a Profire Lightbridge. The mixer functions both as my front end/A to D but also as a control surface. This sort of set up is likely beyond most home studio enthusiasts (which is why I didn't mention it) but it shows what can be done with a computer.

Most of the threads here try to establish whether one thing or another is better are pointless--lots of different users use lots of different things depending on their needs and tastes. There's not all in one portastudio that would do what I need; other people accept the limitations (or aren't affected badly by the limitations) and like the convenience. There's room for both. Vive la difference!

 

[famous beagle]

Just for the record, I use my computer for both live sound playback in theatres and for the production of music and sound effects in my home studio. You mention reliability and stability...but in the 15 or so years I've been using computers in this way, I've not had a single crash that affected my tracking or playback. Prior to going computer, I used CDs and then Minidisks and both those failed on more than one occasion.

As for aesthetics and feel, I didn't mention but my system involves using a digital mixer (Yamaha DM1000) which is fed into my DAW via a Profire Lightbridge. The mixer functions both as my front end/A to D but also as a control surface. This sort of set up is likely beyond most home studio enthusiasts (which is why I didn't mention it) but it shows what can be done with a computer.

Most of the threads here try to establish whether one thing or another is better are pointless--lots of different users use lots of different things depending on their needs and tastes. There's not all in one portastudio that would do what I need; other people accept the limitations (or aren't affected badly by the limitations) and like the convenience. There's room for both. Vive la difference!

That's certainly true. I didn't mean to say one was better than the other.

I'll admit that I'm flat out amazed that you haven't had one computer issue in 15 years. Are your tech services available?

 

[Farview]

That's certainly true. I didn't mean to say one was better than the other.

I'll admit that I'm flat out amazed that you haven't had one computer issue in 15 years. Are your tech services available?

I haven't had any computer problems either. But that is mainly because I research the compatibility of everything I think of getting. If there is an issue that doesn't have a workaround, I simply don't get that item.

Stability issues come from conflicting drivers and badly written plugins. If you look them up, and you find tons of people complaining, you just steer clear. It also helps if you don't use the cheapest stuff you can possibly find. Off-brand hardware and free plugins from places you've never heard of are the fastest ways to grind the computer to a halt.

 

[Doctor Varney]

2 For dependability and ease of use, the portastudio wins hands down. There's nothing more frustrating than tracking down a CPU issue related to some driver/upgrade/compatibility issue. I'm not even an avid computer user, and I've already run into wayyyy more problems in my 3 years with it than I ever did in my decades of portastudio usage (that includes cassette, mini disc, and hard disc). The portastudio may be limited, but that's also its strength in the fact that you don't ever have to mess with it. (This is of course assuming that it continues to function correctly, but that also applies to every aspect of a CPU system, so it's a moot point.)

Thank you. That is exactly what I have been saying all along.