multitrack vs computer

[FloydLongwell]

I have an ancient Korg D1600 mkii that works fine. The question is am I being stupid using such old tech? My only other tech is this Lenovo Ideapad 3 15iil05.

What I like about the Korg, it has inputs for phantom power, so I can use this (ancient) pair of Shure SM81 mics.

I'm only recording single tracks -- acoustic guitar, flute, sax, etc to mix down to 1 & 2. I realize my only output will be by CD

 

[Papanate]

IF nothing is wwong with unit - why not? I’d be concerned about only being able to write CD’s - other than that for what you are doing - and your work flow with which you do it - it’s fine - SM81s are good mics BTW - they might be old - but are certainly useful - I will say this - with recording to a DAW. - you get a multitude of effects - better control of your audio - and more output formats than you can shake a stick at - and easier and greater amounts of storage.

 

[FloydLongwell]

Might be able to export with usb. Is DAW what I have? The only thing wrong is the headphone jack is wonky. Will have to operate at some point.

 

[Papanate]

Might be able to export with usb. Is DAW what I have? The only thing wrong is the headphone jack is wonky. Will have to operate at some point.

Digital Audio Worlstation- fancy name for recording on a Computer with software (Like Reaper, Logic, Cubase etc..) - how is the jack wonky? Is the connector failing or something?

 

[bouldersoundguy]

The Korg is a standalone hardware DAW. Most people mean software on a computer when they say DAW, but it applies to various hardware units as well.

 

[rob aylestone]

I am a naysayer. I have 4 analogue reel to reel recorders, i have mixers and lots of old rack gear. NONE of it is up to the quality and convenience of an interface and computer. There is something very nice about recording with the old stuff, but the advantages are swamped by disadvantages. Cost, reliability, repeatability, convenience, speed, versatility and in my opinion, quality. I have two analogue mixer and two digital ones. The most expensive costing a lot of money. Since covid it has been used 6 times. I do not need a mixer with knobs. My computers allow as many tracks as I need, and for me, automation is everything. I do like the old gear and collect it, but using it? All those restrictions? Not for me.

 

[Manslick]

I prefer multitrack because it’s not a graphical show and I can focus on the music.
My DAW is so awesome that I sometimes spend hours tweaking effects for things that don’t add to the music.
Plus multitrack has better latency.

 

[Papanate]

I prefer multitrack because it’s not a graphical show and I can focus on the music.
My DAW is so awesome that I sometimes spend hours tweaking effects for things that don’t add to the music.
Plus multitrack has better latency.

It’s graphical - just small and limited - but I know what you mean about the lack of distraction - I do that in Logic - you just set it up that way.

 

[rob aylestone]

I think I am a bit weird. I use Cubase like a recorder. The only two things I use commonly are reverb, and a touch of compression. Oddly - not exciting O-Zone or similar products - just two reverbs, and two compressors - that come with cubase. The system sits there, connected. I can fire it up, press record and be recording in less than a minute from start-up. Like papanate - you just set it up to work this way. Probably quicker than shoving cables into sockets!

 

[TalismanRich]

I have both, but 90% of my time is spent on the computer. If I record with my Zoom R-24, the tracks go straight into the computer for mixing. And like Rob, I usually limit myself to the stock plugins from Reaper. REAeq, REAcomp and REAverb with the Bricasti IRs are my mainstays. There are occasions when I play with others, but those time are rare.

My Zoom is great for remote recording tho. You don't have to take a computer, interface, more cords and other stuff. Mixer and the recorder takes care of it.

 

[rob aylestone]

I have a good friend who also uses cubase. I was preparing something and he said he would send me his cubase file - as we both had the actual audio files, this would be simple. Nope! His file had over 120 tracks, and cubase threw up a plug-in error - 72 plug-ins not found. I knew some of the names but had no idea at all what they did. One guitar part was over a dozen tracks - each little bit processed with different processing. I moved them all to one track marked guitar. Reverb, tempo mapped delay and that was that. The same application but used radically different!

 

[Manslick]

120 tracks is, well, ridiculous.

But I’m in a phase now where I’m doing the minimalist thing by restricting myself to 24 tracks ha ha.

 

[60's guy]

I have an ancient Korg D1600 mkii that works fine. The question is am I being stupid using such old tech? My only other tech is this Lenovo Ideapad 3 15iil05.

What I like about the Korg, it has inputs for phantom power, so I can use this (ancient) pair of Shure SM81 mics.

I'm only recording single tracks -- acoustic guitar, flute, sax, etc to mix down to 1 & 2. I realize my only output will be by CD

Your Korg D1600 is very similar to the older Yamaha AW16G and the Yamaha AW1600 units. You can export files via CD to computer. If it ain't broke....use it to record yourself.

 

[FloydLongwell]

Your Korg D1600 is very similar to the older Yamaha AW16G and the Yamaha AW1600 units. You can export files via CD to computer. If it ain't broke....use it to record yourself.

Thanks.

 

[Slouching Raymond]

But I’m in a phase now where I’m doing the minimalist thing by restricting myself to 24 tracks ha ha.

Not to worry, Manslick. You can still mix down some tracks to a stem, to free up space for more tracks.

 

[TalismanRich]

The 1600 mkII has USB, so I'm guessing that you can export from the Korg to a computer. That was a big advantage of the Yamaha AW1600 over the 16G. When I transferred a practice session from my AW16G some years back. I had to export tracks individually on CD-RWs. They were too big to put more than one on a disc. Once I transferred them, it was a simple process to dump them into my computer.

 

[TascamJimi]

I've recently returned to recording after a 20 year break to raise a family. I used to run a Tascam 488MKII cassette and that was a lot of fun, but after a few bounces things got ' interesting' ! This time around I've opted for a Tascam DP-02, an ancient machine by today's standards. I've LOVED playing with this machine and learning how it works. I'm a fan of physical knobs to turn ( sorry Rob ! ) as opposed to doing everything on a screen, jogging through menu's and having to use a mouse to rotate 'knobs' on the fly.. At some point I will indeed put together a DAW, but for right now I actually enjoy the challenge of making a good recording in 2025 on gear from a bygone era of technology. I will admit to being intrigued when I see pics of studios with 48 inch screens full of all kinds of visual stimulation, but I'm not good with technology at all and I feel I would be overwhelmed with all that technology as opposed to the very simple layout of the DP-02. I'm only recording for personal fun... it's great father / son time, and we're not trying to record a smash album......just having FUN !!!
I guess what I'm babbling about is, use what works for you and allows you to do your best work in the easiest and most convenient method.

Jim

 

[Slouching Raymond]

This time around I've opted for a Tascam DP-02, an ancient machine by today's standards.

Plenty of up-sides to your route, Tascamjimi.
What annoys me is having to do something complicated through a tiny screen.
Although I did buy a DP08EX, specifically for recording electro-classical guitar in public places.

 

[TascamJimi]

Plenty of up-sides to your route, Tascamjimi.
What annoys me is having to do something complicated through a tiny screen.
Although I did buy a DP08EX, specifically for recording electro-classical guitar in public places.

Boy you aren't kidding there !!! I literally have a magnifying glass at the ready ! The screen on my Boss - DR-770 is even worse because it doesn't even have a back lit display ! Even wearing glasses, AND the magnifying glass I can still barely read the display ! That is a HUGE benefit to the DAW, you can actually SEE stuff !! LOL Getting old stinks...but i'm not even sure my younger eyes could deal with this stuff !! How are you supposed to cut and paste and edit tracks on a display that 1 inch x 2 inch !! I'm curious why Tascam never made a portastudio that has a USB monitor out that you could just connect to a larger screen.

 

[TalismanRich]

I'm sure adding a USB monitor output would add a significant cost. It's not just the USB circuitry, but you need to have all the video circuitry, added programming to convert the little display to a HD setup. Depending on the system, does it need more menus?

Some of the old workstations had video outputs, like the Roland VS2480. It output VGA with wave zooming, channel strip views, and had mouse control, but then you're sort of getting into regular DAWland. You only had VGA output for a few of the most commonly used screens. It was only on the highest end units. They were expensive in those days.. $3000 back in 2001 was pricey for many of us. Then you had to add the monitor and CD. You're not going to get all that in a sub $500 unit.

That's the reason I do mixing in the DAW. Once I learned the system, it went faster and gave me better control. But I like learning this stuff, so it was fun time for me. And since I've only been playing with computers since the days of TI 99/4As, Atari 800s and Apple ][s, I'm not intimidated by them. Heck, I was writing BASIC programs in the early 70s on HP 2000 minicomputers. I couldn't wait until I could afford MY OWN personal computer!