16-Track wars, THE final debate

  • Thread starter Thread starter faded
  • Start date Start date
F

faded

New member
i know this has been talked about alot, but i want a final answer

so lets all state the following for the unit you think is the best.
put down the pros and cons of each,personal experiance, prices...ect

thanks alot, i hope this works out good and we can find out which one is the best.

btw im talking about the korg1600 , akai , ect.




www.dawconnection.com
 
I think hands down, the Roland 1680 takes the cake. Sure there are other units that record at a slightly higher quality, but the value for the price you pay, particularly on used units, really can't be beat by any other system out there. There's a reason it is the #1 selling workstation.
 
Unfortionately the roland units all have data compression so they are audibly Inferior to the Akai, Korg, and the Yamaha.

Now for the three 24/96 uncompressed units we have the Akai dps16, the Korg d1600, and the Yamaha 4416.

All three of them do have great sound, but the prices are a wide margin so just for the sake of arguement I propose that we assume that we all had 2800.00 to spend on the gear. now for that we could have the Akai Dps 16+Les paul studio+ marshall stack, the korg and the les paul, or the Yamaha alone. Now which one would make you more happy.

Yamaha 4416 2800.00
Korg d1600 1600.00
Akai DPS16 900.00 These are current Mars prices.

I want the les paul and the marshall amp myself.
 
Whereas it is true the Roland units use some compression (except on MAS mode) I think the sound quality vs. the other units mentioned here is negligable, IMHO. No doubt that is a trade off, but the value for money is still in Roland's court.

Although I've long been a fan of the 1680, if I had the cash I'd love to get my grubby hands on the Yammy 4416--what a great looking machine, motorized faders, plus dynamics on every track.
 
The Roland Units (880ex, 1680) offer a choice of compressed or uncompressed... I've compared both types on my 880ex and I've found very little difference.
 
Assuming you are no fan of bouncing tracks I guess you can have a les paul with that. but face it the akai dps 16 has it all over the roland. Now the 24 track machines Roland does have uncompressed audio, but the Akai dps24 is the animal.
 
the good news is...

Judging from the responses from this thread and others, one thing we all need to look at is this: there are ardent supporters of each of the systems. And that tells me that all of them must be pretty good in a lot of ways. It's almost a 'can't go (too) wrong' situation. It's really a testament to the state of the art of Digital Work Stations. My guess is, from reading and reading here and elsewhere, you have to go and play with each one and get a feel for it. One will probably jump out at ya as being THE ONE for you. I plan on visiting the shops this weekend and checking things out for myself.

Having said all that... I know this debate ain't over. And where have all the Yamaha AW4416 supporters been? Or is that system just too darn expensive for everyone's taste?
 
Its Cool But not 2000.00 better than the Akai, the sound is the same except the yamaha doesnt automate Pans and Eq like the Akai, and the Korg. In which case I still will want a les paul and a Marshall stack with my multitrack.
 
my vote would have to go to the studer a820 with 16 track headstack, or maybe an ampex mm1200 for those who don't have $50k to throw around.
 
Ponto,
You hit the nail on the head. When I took my first recording class at college (only 10 years ago), we had probably $100,000 worth of gear at our disposal--1" Otari 16-track, 7 effects, etc. But today, for about $2000, you can have a fully digital studio that produced better quality recordings than that $100,000 studio ever did. Welcome to a wonderful age.
 
"But today, for about $2000, you can have a fully digital studio that produced better quality recordings than that $100,000 studio ever did."
i would have to say that that's a HIGHLY subjective opinion, one which i would be very quick to disagree with. if you honestly think a little all in one digital box is going to sound that much better than state of the art analog gear, you were either dealing with terrible engineers in college or have VERY different ears than mine.
 
state of the art discribes the digital stuff, the analog gear had a nice warm quality and tape compression, but the quality of the digital stuff got better and Id say that this generation of 2000.00 rigs have it all over the tape decks from long ago.
 
Hey...If everyone thinks the VS-1680 is so great. Ive got one for sale on Ebay. The Item number is 875764267. Check it out.
 
Actually, to get some facts straight:
-The Korgs (D16 and D1600) DON'T Have a 96kHz mode. they DO have a 24bit/44.1 kHz mode.

-The ROlands aren't popular for a bunch of reasons:
* outdated (except maybe the VS1824 and the VS2480)
* record in data-compressed (3:1) mode. they DO have options to record lineair, but the simultaneous track record number will go down
* very UNEASY to use. Roland's 'creative' use of the 'shift' button has created those problems.
* Roland's micpre's are inferior to those of the Akai's and the Yamaha's...

Although I like my Korg D16, I must say that IF you can get your hands on a Akai DPS 16 with 20gb hdd and fxboard for less than $1000, GO FOR IT.

In the big league we have:
-Yamaha AW4416
-Roland VS 2480
-Akai DPS 24

From what I've seen, the Akai smokes them both...but yes, at a higher price.
Really, if you'll try to record in 24bit/96kHz mode, the VS2480 will be a 'mere' 16 tracker with very little options.... The Akai has no problems there.
 
Oh, and about the whole analog vintage stuff vs. DAW's...
Think about what an Akai DPS 24 for $5000 can do, and then go figure what the analog counterpart would cost ya with the same options... or can you find 24tr, 2" Studers for $3000? Don't think so.

Besides, if you DO have $50k to spend on some quality vintage analog-stuff, you'll still have to do a lot of maintenance.
And since most younger people on this BBS don't know much about terms like "head alignment" or "azimuth".... you'll get the point.

If you have the money, know-how, space and time, analog might be your best bet, for the other 4 billion people, there are all-in-one DAW's... ;)
 
"And since most younger people on this BBS don't know much about terms like "head alignment" or "azimuth"...."
younger people? i'm 19 for chrissake! i figured out what all that shit meant after about 10 minutes of reading "gasp" an actual book. besides, there's tons of online resources to tell you everything you'd want to know about analog recorders.
"state of the art discribes the digital stuff, the analog gear had a nice warm quality and tape compression, but the quality of the digital stuff got better and Id say that this generation of 2000.00 rigs have it all over the tape decks from long ago."
this is just pathetic. you could at least say IMO "better," but have you ever even worked with proffesional analog? how many proffesional engineers do you think would pick a fucking all in one DAW over a well maintained 2" 16 track with state of the art processing gear? if you honestly think your roland toy is "state of the art," then you've been reading a little too much industry bullshit.
"Besides, if you DO have $50k to spend on some quality vintage analog-stuff, you'll still have to do a lot of maintenance."
analog machines are cheaper than ever these days thanks to everyone jumping on the digital "in w/new out w/old" bandwagon, and while there may be some maintenance issues involved, personally i enjoy that level of involvement with my artistic equipment. would you play guitar or drums without knowing how to tune them or set them up properly? hopefully not. sheesh.
 
Dragnalus, out of the 4 quotes you used, only 2 were mine. And don't get your underwear in a wrinkle,'I didn't say: "ALL THE young people", I said "MOST young...."

And frankly, I don't give a fuck, especially when you say :"A well maintained...blah blah"... How many Studers can you buy for little money that are * well maintained*? Next to none. Especially the 16 track 2"...

So next time, when you are pissed about some quotes, be pissed at the right persons, coz now you make it sound like I said all 4 of them...
 
I have a Yamaha 2816.

What I liked about it were-
Large easy to read display
Smart easy to use OS
Software and hardware buttons for most functions
Built in cd burner that can do wav files and read unfinalized cds
Can read and generate MTC and midi clock
Has a dedicated out for computer linkup
You have good option cards,one of which is a Waves card with 8 channels of Adat I/O
Sounds really good too.

Hope this helps.

Best to you,
Pete
 
speeddemon: how did i make it sound like you said all that stuff? i don't think i ever said that i was talking just to you. i'm not pissed, i'm just expressing my $.02. and depending on how hard you look, you can find good deals on 2" 16 track decks for $2-3k, though they may not be studer. but otaris and ampexes are still pretty damn good.
darrin: um, if you like to fuck with less stuff, then i think analog is for you, as it is much more simple and straightforward than any digital system i've ever used.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top