Search results

i BELIEVE that the POD PRO has SPDIF digital outputs (the XT has some sort of USB connection) and the PRO has an external effects send/return. i don't think the PRO is worth the cash. KEEP THIS IN MIND,...although the XT is the "newest" POD,..there are many users who PREFER the sound of the POD...

AW16G for guitarists?? SURE!! for NON-GUITARISTS?? You bet!! most standalone DAW's toss in the collection of "amp and stompbox" simulations these days. you'll find them in the Korg, in the BIG Yammies, in the Rolands and even in the mighty little Tascam 788. do you need them or will you use...

Nate, WHICHEVER multitrack you decide on,..keep this in mind: NONE OF THEM ARE PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! whether you buy a Roland, a Yamaha or a Korg....there will be features about each that you LOVE and features about each that BUG THE CRAP OUT OF YOU. you just have to decide on a recorder...

NLAlston, the reference to "automated moving faders" was a description of the mixing feature available on the Yamaha AW4416 and AW2816. when a mix is played back, the faders actually (physically) MOVE up and down on the console (in accordance to the mix parameters that you have programmed into...

it's a "laptop" type cdrw. it pops out when you push the button but you have to phsically "shove" it back into the unit. seems a "bit" fragile but all reports indicate that i works just fine (just needs to be treated "gently").:)

Dinsdale, with MULTIPLE boards discussing the AW4416 and AW2816 i think you might have more of a "niche" if you stuck straight with the AW16G. although it is still new,..there will be MANY new owners very soon. ALL will be looking for a forum to call HOME (and not be a "tag-a-long" to a larger...

aus,..just curious. is there something about the "sound" of your current setup that you aren't happy with?? are you looking for more "warmth" or "presence" from your recordings? i've actually been considering something along these lines as well (currently i am mixing a 16-bit digital signal...

me likes that Masterlink thing-a-mah-bob also. it's nice to adjust your settings and then just "walk" away from it while it does all the work,..freeing up your computer or DAW for you to lay down tracks for the next multi-platinum selling bagpipe-music cd.:D Yo U.S.S. Hornet, glad that Yammie...

congrats on your purchase of the 788. it is a fine little unit. that being said,...go IMMEDIATELY to: http://209.216.16.19/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=forum;f=13 and search the archives. you'll find your answers there in abundance. or,..sign in and ask away. it's a great formum with lots of...

$999.00 at Musician's FIEND??? i called them today and they quoted me $1099.00!!! what gives??? well i'll be damned and what the hell and all that!:) it's probably only a matter of time before an AW16G forum shows up at this site: http://www.socialentropy.com/aw4416/ at first i dismissed...

the VS1680 was the "King of the Hill" in it's heyday (2-3 years ago) and is still a good unit. HOWEVER,.. (as with all Roland VS recorders) it uses DATA COMPRESSION which "can" reduce fidelity in certain frequencies ESPECIALLY after bouncing tracks. the AW16G is an impressive little unit. i...

THANKSGIVING ALREADY!!???!!?? man,.. where did October go?? i KNEW i shouldn't have eaten those mushrooms.. .......next thing you know you wake up under a tree and your beard is down to your ankles and some shepherd walks up and shakes you saying: "Mr. Van Winkle,....wake up!!! wake up Mr. Van...

Green, when i mentioned the "editing" issue on the AW's, it was referring more to the "cut/paste" type stuff rather than eq/pan/fader adjustments and the like. again, i don't own one ("financially challenged" chap that i am:) ), but i've heard a few owners gripe about it. that being said, it is...

micah, Yamaha makes great stuff. they are "fairly" new at DAW's, however. the 4416 is a fine unit (as is the 2816). editing is a bit of a "bug-a-boo" on Yammies (i.e. you can't HEAR what you are are editing). other than that, audio quality is great and interfacing with other gear is really...

skippy and ausrock,..many thanks for the responses. as i record ALOT of acoustic instruments i "figured" that the 1624 would be a better bet. i prefer the flexibility of mixing on an analog desk and i'm really not concerned with having "250 virtual tracks" per project. kudos to skippy for the...

given a price difference of less than $200 (on the used market) is the D1624 worth the extra cash?? i'd be mixing through an analog desk and was just wondering if i'd notice the benefits of "24-bit" clarity. i've also heard that the 1624 is a bit noisy. i record alot of acoustic instruments...

by the way,...i OWN a 1604 and i absolutely LOVE IT.:) :D :)

neither. the 1604 has 16 SEPERATE channel whilst the 1642 has (i believe) 8 SEPERATE channels (1-8) and 4 SHARED channels (9/10, 11/12, 13/14, and 15/16). it just depends on what you need. the 1604 will give you the option of setting the LEVEL, EQ and PAN of 16 SEPERATE inputs. with the 1642...

i've heard this pitch before (when i bought some BOSE speakers a few years back). it has gotten me thinking about a monitoring system consisting of SMALLER nearfields with a subwoofer tucked beneath my mixing desk. the space i have for recording has gone from small to smaller (due to unforeseen...

my digital multitrack is a 16-bit/44.1khz recorder with 20-bit A/D converters. i read an article somewhere recently where a studio owner said that he upgraded his A/D converters and it made his 16-bit ADAT recorders sound "almost" like 24-bit machines. i'm having a hard time making sense of...