Computerless recording setup - ideas ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter toddn
  • Start date Start date
ecc83 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Dave, you would use an inline type studio mixer. In addition to the mic and line inputs each channel has direct out and tape in. The channel can route the main input to tape and monitor the tape return at the same time. Tracking, overdubbing and mixing are all accommodated nicely.

But it looks like it's really for live recording. Capture the show and dump it to computer later. For example, I use a Soundcraft GB2R and an Alesis HD24. The GB2R has direct outs. The ICE-16 could replace my HD24 without any change in cabling, but I would lose the ability to capture my live mix and a room mic along with my 16 direct tracks. On a mixer with no direct outputs it's a simple matter to tap signal from an unused insert or split the signal from an insert being used, which is what I did for years on the Mackie I used before I had the Soundcraft.
 
ecc83 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why couldn't you just put the recorder on the insert? Insert send to the recorder input and the recorder output back to the insert. When it's in record mode, the signal would just go through the recorder...

Or, you could get a proper recording desk with direct out's and tape returns.
 
"Why couldn't you just put the recorder on the insert? Insert send to the recorder input and the recorder output back to the insert. When it's in record mode, the signal would just go through the recorder..."

Well Jay that assumes the recorder always sends a signal back from its outputs and I don't know that it does. It also means you would not be monitoring the true "thru" signal of the mixer plus I have no idea of the latency involved.

Dave.
 
Yeah, I wouldn't go through the recording device via the inserts even though I'm sure you can route the signal through the recorder and the latency would probably be pretty low.
 
For me, the Ice 16 seems to be the perfect device for what I want to do with it. Transfer 16 tape tracks into the digital realm all at once.

For a band, you'd run it off the board, hit record and bingo. You've captured your show or rehearsal. Basically it would work like a tape machine except digital.

You could later mix it in the analog domain OR in a daw.

As far as size, well, it's 1 rack unit and there are tons of small rack mounted mixers. So it can be standalone and pretty portable.
 
I've never seen a recorder that doesn't output the input signal in record mode.

I would never do it either, because when I was using hardware recorders, I bought a proper recording console. So it wasn't necessary. But if you don't have the proper equipment, it should work just fine. If the latency is more than an old a ADAT or DA88, the recorder is a piece of crap.
 
I still track with a Yamaha AW4416 then dump into Reaper for mixing and editing, Via MTC sinc and ADAT at 24/48. 8 channels at a time. I have been using the AW for about 8 years and find it extremely stable with NO latency problems for tracking. For me it is a great solution.
 
Adam Greene said:
I still track with a Yamaha AW4416 then dump into Reaper for mixing and editing, Via MTC sinc and ADAT at 24/48. 8 channels at a time. I have been using the AW for about 8 years and find it extremely stable with NO latency problems for tracking. For me it is a great solution.
Click to expand...

Are you also using the AW4416 as a control surface in reaper?
AW4416 is one of my saved searches on eBay ever since I got rid (still kicking myself) of the Akai DPS12i... Paired with an MPC2500/1000 or a Roland MV8800 would be a pretty sweet rig for me!
 
Dave Holmes said:
Are you also using the AW4416 as a control surface in reaper?
AW4416 is one of my saved searches on eBay ever since I got rid (still kicking myself) of the Akai DPS12i... Paired with an MPC2500/1000 or a Roland MV8800 would be a pretty sweet rig for me!
Click to expand...




I have used it as a control surface, but it is limited. You can get faders, pan and basics to work, but that's pretty much it. Right now I just track with it then dump into Reaper as previously mentioned. I have been recording with the AW4416 for several years and only recently went to a computer (windows) based recording set up. I may eventually lose the AW in my set up, but I can tell you first hand it is a very impressive unit to be as old as the technology is. I believe Yamaha discontinued them in 04 or 05?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top