advice for a newbie....

[napalm229]

Hello, I would like some advice from anyone willing to give it.

I am trying to start home recording. I am new to this and I was wandering if I should go with a standalone digital workstation, (I was thinking of the Yamaha AW4416, I can get one off ebay), or if I should go the ProTools/ Cubase type route. I am concerned about ease of use, primarily, as well as sound quality.

I have a pretty good PC, Pentium 2.6GHz, 512MB RAM, and something like 100 GB of memory available right now, running Win XP. Also I have purchased a pair of Mackie HR824s that I got a a steal of a price. I will be doing everything myself....I have a drum machine, and the rest of the instruments of course.

I have a fair idea of what I will need as far as setup, but my main question is which of the two options will be the most cost effective for me. I think that I can get a good Yamaha unit for around $1000. I honestly have no idea how much a Cubase program or something like that would run, or the extra hardware that I would need to enable my PC to handle recording.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated, I am quite serious about this, I have dreamed about this for a long time, and I want to stretch my cash that I have saved as far as I can. Thank you for any help you have to offer me.

napalm229

 

[manning1]

read my post to alexandrah a few threads down. basically get powertracks for 29 bucks from pgmusic.com plus a decent sound card and mics and pre's
and be happy. this way you'll save on buying plug ins plus have 48 tracks to record to and a slew of features.

 

[Kevin Deschwazi]

Generally speaking, things that are easy to use at first, become limiting and lack versatility further on down the line.

I was in a similar position to yours a couple of years ago and I went for an all in one recorder. I enjoyed using it but it's limitations were apparent after a relatively short period of time.

Now I record into the PC and I'd recommend this route for anyone starting out. I also think that this would be more cost effective as you already have the PC, (another 512mb of RAM wouldn't go a miss though).

If ease of use is a real issue for you try Kristal which is a free recording software package, very easy to use. Then when you need more capability you can splash out on protools/cubase/whatever.

For now you can spend your money on a soundcard, mics and pre's (and maybe a bit more RAM).

Very wise to get good monitors early on, I've heard a lot of good things about those Mackie's.

 

[Ronan]

If ease of use is a big concern stay away from computer recording. a small mixer and a stand alone multitrack such as an ADAT would be a good start and they are cheap on the used market.

 

[tedluk]

I have the AW2816 though I'm going to replace it. I know it's similar to the AW4416 and I find the operating system to be unintuitive. It's powerful enough, but it just doesn't seem to have a feel that's good for my creativity.

I think you can make valid arguments for both hardware based recording and for doing it in a computer. The hardware DAWS have the advantage of being built for one purpose which means their OS is optimized for doing one thing- recording audio. This is a very important thing to consider. If you look around at this and other forums, you'll see that people spend a lot of time and effort trying to get their computers to play nice with their software and sound cards and it can be a lot of work to get everything working. With a dedicated hard disk recorder you avoid all of that. Plug your mics and instruments in, set levels, arm tracks and record.

There can be little argument however that a computer based system offers a lot of flexibility. The ability to use third party plug-ins, softsynths, different audio editing software, etc means your system can continually grow and change and stay up-to-date.

Right now, I'm seriously looking at the Akai DPS24 and using it with my SONAR based computer system. This is the best of both worlds. I'll be able to record through the DPS or the computer, move files back and forth for different processing and editing AND have the advantage of a beautiful hardware surface with full automation for mixing.

Another REALLY cool thing about a combination like this is that you can actually dump tracks through ADAT into your computer, apply VST effects and send them back to the DPS, get this, IN REAL TIME! Amazingly, the latency is small enough that this actually works. It opens up a whole new world of possibilities. This will also work with any other recorder that can send its tracks out through an ADAT or TDIF or M-LAN port to a computer.

So, before you buy the Yamaha, take a look at the Akai. Generally, I think the Akai will offer you better connectivity, better preamps, a better user interface and (this is really, really important!) much, much better support.

If it's either/or, then I would make the decision based on how good you are with computers. It can be a lot of work to get a system working properly and keep it working properly.

Good luck!

Ted

 

[napalm229]

WOW......

Ok, thanks to everyone that has offered advice to me, I really appreciate it. I had never considered the option that Ted just gave me, I guess that I have a lot of things to consider now. If you happen to be back, Ted, could you give me an estimate on the price range of the AKAI unit?

Also, this is an issue that I have been wondering. One of the most important things to me is going to be my guitar tone. I happen to own a Line 6 AX212 digital modeling amplifier. I love the thing to death. When I purchaed it a couple of years ago, I was told that I could line directly in to record my tone, without having to mic the amp. My question is.....what equipment would I need to do this? Or, would you prefer to mic the amp? I realize that sometimes the sound can be a little "dry" recording directly, but I really want a clean signal.

However, if I really should mic the amp, then what mics would you recommend? I am willing to go for a midlevel price ranged mic, I may even be able to luck up on ebay, it has been great for me so far. If it matters, I am playing prog metal primarily on a 7 string...so there are lots of low mids from low B to low A. This is one reason that I wanted to do the direct route if possible.

But after all I am a newbie, and that is why I am here. Thanks a lot for your help guys.

 

[SHEPPARDB.]

Napalm,I had to make the same choice about a year ago,and I chose the
aw4416.
I know that a lot of people prefer the computer route but,for me it seems
easier to have actual faders in front of me.I didnt know a lot about com--
puters,or how to best set them up for recording at that time.(and still
dont know as much as I would like to)The thing that worried me most
about computer recording were crashes and latency issues, that I had ob-
served people with much more comp experience than myself having.
I bought my 4416 for $1200 and ive never regretted the purchase.
I also use a program called AWExtract.With this software I can take a
backup disc that I created on the aw and convert each track to a wave
file,that can be opened using the recording/editing software of my choice.
This allows me to use any plug-in that a comp based recorder can use.It
also allows me to mix and edit in the computer,yet have a tracking machine
that is very portable.
If I were you I would consider this one
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15199&item=3743657659&rd=1

 

[Ronan]

, I was told that I could line directly in to record my tone, without having to mic the amp. My question is.....what equipment would I need to do this? Or, would you prefer to mic the amp? I realize that sometimes the sound can be a little "dry" recording directly, but I really want a clean signal.

However, if I really should mic the amp, then what mics would you recommend? I am willing to go for a midlevel price ranged mic, I may even be able to luck up on ebay, it has been great for me so far. If it matters, I am playing prog metal primarily on a 7 string...so there are lots of low mids from low B to low A. This is one reason that I wanted to do the direct route if possible.

Hey Napalm, 10 times out of 10 I would choose to mic an amp rather than record direct with a direct fake amp. (some others on this board have different tastes.) I have actually worked with some heavy prog guitarists (Robert Fripp, Steve Morse, Steve Stevens..) So I have done a lot of wrestling guitar tones in complex music. I say go with the miced amp. When you are doing technical guitar stuff (especially with a seven string) one thing you really need is definintion in the notes when you crank up the gain. One of the worst problems with amp simulators (there are many) is they start smearing the definition of your notes (and the other instruments in the band) when you crank up the gain.

You do not need to spend a lot of money on a mic. One of the best electric guitar mics ever is about $75 (a shure sm57).

 

[napalm229]

Ok, that REALLY helps a lot....thank you so much for the advice.

I just got an offer for a Yamaha AW4416 for less than I thought, I think that I am going to take it for the time being. As for the recording guitar tones issue, that is what I needed to know, and I actually have a SM57 here, so that works out great.

As I have said before, this site really rocks and I appreciate all the help that I have gotten here.

 

[tedluk]

Napalm-

The DPS24 goes for about $2800.00, but you can find them used (not a lot of them available though) for around $2000.00. But it sounds like I'm too late.

Ted