Analog Multitrack recorders vs. Digital Multitrack recorders

  • Thread starter Thread starter orificium
  • Start date Start date
O

orificium

New member
I have no experience recording at all. My band consists of 2 guitarists, a drummer, a bassist, and a keyboardist. Most likely more than one vocalist.

First off should we just start out with a 4-track or would an 8-track be a better idea?

Secondly, and my main question, do we go analog or digital? From what this recording engineer tells me analog is better. Not sure exactly what he means by this. Most likely he's referring to the actual sound. But it seems that digital is more versatile.


Thanks.
 
Go digital man

There are a lot of people in this world that just don't like digital. There is a diference between the two. analog has a bit warmer sound than digital how ever digital is a lot easier to work with. And as far as I am concerned you should go with a minimum of 8 tracks. More is better in this case. One reason is the drums. When you are able to record you drums on different tracks, you can apply different eq's and affects to each drum. If you just dump them to 2 tracks you do not have that luxury. One more thing that I will throw in my 2 cents in, in order to get that good warm analog sound, you need to have good (big bucks) analog equipment.
 
JC makes a great point -- good analog recording gear costs a bundle and takes a lot of maintenance (cleaning tape heads and other parts of the transport, demagnetizing, etc.).

You can probably find gazillions of arguments on either side. To my ears, digital sounds better if it's done right and if you are listening on typical everyday gear. Working in the digital domain is also so flexible that it's almost ridiculous. It's almost too easy to move things around and combine takes and fiddle with editing the waveforms -- there are so many options it can be an impediment, trying to decide where to stop and draw the line.

-AlChuck
 
It's all a question of budget. 4 tracks is cheaper than 8 tracks is cheaper than 16...
Analog is cheaper than digital (and that goes for high quality analog equipment too. An use 1/4" 8 track is much cheaper than a digital 8-track.

What usually gives you most bangs for the buck combined with ease of use and portability is some kind of portastudio. There you kind find stuff from $100 to $5000, basically. Check out your needs, like how many channels do you want to record at one time, how many inputs do you need at one time, and how many of these are microphones, and do you need phantom-power?
Then buy the best you can for the money you have.
 
Yo Oritorioficiumo:

"TIME IS MONEY." An old adage; however, still true. Digital is so cool; you do a track and push a button or tap on a control and WHOOOFFFFOO you're right back to GO. Do you like to sit and wait for the tape to rewind?

Without a doubt, get 8 tracks or 12 or 16. Beyond that is beyond my skill level. I can do two or three part fuges; and I've seen a real pro use all 8 tracks at my studio but three were for drum splashes and small additions.

If you can get demos on equipment before you buy it, that's the way to go. Call all the 800 numbers man; you'd be shocked to learn that one call might save you 200 pezutos. [or more]

Get going man -- make music.

Green Hornet
 
Orificium,

How much do you have to spend? I agree with the others that you should go for 8 tracks and not 4. Four is ok but you'll outgrow it in a real hurry. You should probably go digital but keep your eyes open for any used 1/4" analog gear in case you find a good deal.

Mark
 
Orificium,

You won't find any decent digital standalones in this price range and forget about 8-track. You should be able to get a reasonable 4-track cassette-based multitracker that will do 4 tracks simultaneously within this budget. Check out products by Fostex, Tascam, and Yamaha for starters. They offer a wide range of equipment that is in your price bracket.

Mark
 
Orificium,

Good choices. You should be able to find those in your price range. Remember, the 488 (I'm not sure about the 688) can only do 4-tracks at once. Be sure to test the unit fully before you commit to a purchase. I've always been a bit wary of trying to cram 8 tracks onto a cassette tape. Another possibility is a 1/4" 8-track reel to reel and a mixer (although you may blow your budget unless you get lucky).

Mark
 
mixer + recorder

wow that brings up a new question.

say I buy a mixer and a recorder seperately (not sure if I want reel to reel), but any recorder.

Can I specify that I want to say, record channels through 9 onto track 5?

Also how does connecting a mixer to a recorder work? (I bet this sounds real NEWBIE)
 
Orificium,

All cassette-based multitrackers are of the "portastudio" type. That is, they all have built-in mixers. Most reel to reels don't have a mixer but it's easy to configure. Just run your inputs into the mixer, then output from the mixer to the recorder. Yes, you can assign several inputs to a single track using the mixer. You'll be able to do everything that a 488 can do and more. Generally, a separate mixer has better pre-amps, better eq, and more flexibility with effects looping. There are several reel to reel units that have built in mixers too, but you're looking at big bucks and they're not very portable and weigh a ton. R to R (even 1/4") will kick ass to any cassette unit in all aspects. I have an old Teac A-3440 1/4" r to r that I sometimes use instead of my Yamaha MT4X cassette. It is a bitch to carry around to locations outside my studio (I usually record the instrumental tracks at a remote rehearsal facility and do the vocals in my studio) and I don't have the accompanying DBX noise reduction unit for this recorder so I rarely use it, but it sounds great. You have many possibilities, make your selection carefully.

Mark
 
Uhm, well, no...

there are separate casette recorders too, but they are unusual. But as said before, get a 4-track portastudio, which can record all 4 tracks at one time. Also it's good if it has separate outs for each channel. Then you can use external mixers later if you want to.
You'll probably also need a good mic, a compressor and a reverb (or multi-effects box).
(Exactly what you need depends on what you are recording).
 
regebro,

You're right, I shouldn't have said "all" cassette recorders have built in mixers but realistically, you don't see them without too often as you clarified.

Mark
 
analog or digital?i am using adat right now,and would drop it like a hot potato for a 2" analog machine,but anything less in analog format would be a step down,in my opinion.only bad thing is they are godawful expensive to find one in good shape.if you find one real cheap,beware,it probably needs a new headstack and that can cost a boatload of money to replace.......cheers
 
oops!i just spotted the post where you said you wanted to spend $400 or less,that definately rules out a 2" machine.for that kind of money,i'd look for a used digital 4 tracker
 
I understand theres many options. And that analog isn't really all that great unless it's reel to reel, or adat. But I'm just starting out, and just wanna do some simple recording stuff. I mean, is recording onto cassettes really that bad? :)
 
orificium said:
...And that analog isn't really all that great unless it's reel to reel, or adat...
Click to expand...

Er, I'm confused... ADAT *is* digital!

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
No cassettes isn't that bad.

A 4-track with double speed recording, Dolby C or dbx and high-quality chrome casettes can result in recordings that has an excellent demo standard. The biggest problem is that there is so few tracks, and that there therefore is very hard to fix mistakes that you discover late in the process. You cant "fix it in the mix".
 
I agree with regebro (this time!!!) :) *kidding*

You can get excellent results with 4/8-track analog, but you have to really work at it. You must also accept the fact that they will *never* be release quality - but you can make some fine sounding demos...

Bruce Valeriani
Blue Bear Sound
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top