Best digital multitrack on a budget?

[zarzuela]

Hello all,

I have come back into music-making after an 8 year break. When I was last recording, I was using a cassette portastudio at home for some of my material. Now something very sudden has come up; someone has sent me an MP3 bed which I will record a vocal for. I will then be emailing the result back to them. They may need to be able to separate my vocal from the instrumental track.

There is a time limit on the project and I wondered what portable digital home studios anyone would recommend? I am doing as much research as I can but it's really a case of get it now, record your vocal. I don't have much space and am on a tight budget. It would have to produce a file I can upload. I have a Shure mic hanging around somewhere if not all your recommendations have inbuilt mics.

I have a PC with Windows XP but would prefer my recording not to be totally dependent on the PC. I have also downloaded Audacity.

As you can tell I need to do some serious catching up.

Sorry about the post length. Your help would be very much appreciated!

Thank you

 

[TetraFish]

If you want something stand alone that's a possiblity. Or you could buy a little interface, in which case you would need it hooked to your computer all the time.

What's your budget?

One example of a stand alone unit.
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/music_products/mr8hd.shtml

One example of an interface.
http://www.m-audio.com/products/en_us/FastTrackPro.html

 

[bunt]

Just try to get something that records at 24bits. You won't regret it.

 

[zarzuela]

Thanks for the fast replies! Tetrafish - I'm on about £300 but having looked around I may have to stretch this. Ouch. Thanks for the links, they were helpful - and I am not completely closed to the idea of using interface.

Bunt - thanks for the tip - I read 24 bits results in more 'headspace'?

 

[RichJ]

If you're going from cassettes and on a budget, I wouldn't worry about 24 bits. Many budget recorders are 16 bits - In most cases, the difference is not perceptible on low-end gear. I would worry more about getting the right features that you need.

I have a FastTrack Pro and it works fine for what is designed for.

My friend loves his Tascam DP-008 8-track recorder - should be in your price range. There is also a cheaper 4-track version.

Rich

 

[bunt]

If you're going from cassettes and on a budget, I wouldn't worry about 24 bits. Many budget recorders are 16 bits - In most cases, the difference is not perceptible on low-end gear. I would worry more about getting the right features that you need.

I have a FastTrack Pro and it works fine for what is designed for.

My friend loves his Tascam DP-008 8-track recorder - should be in your price range. There is also a cheaper 4-track version.

Rich

All true. 16 bits is fine and I'm a fan of Tascam multitrackers. It's just that there are some 24 bit machines that don't really cost much more.

Where I don't totally agree is in the statement that the difference is not perceptable... to me it's huge and it starts with tracking levels.

 

[zarzuela]

All interesting feedback, folks. I admit I have a soft spot for Tascam as the one I had lasted - and lasted - and had a beautiful sound. I'm moving on to digital now.

I wondered if there was an easy way of transferring the aforementioned MP3 track from my computer, to one of the tracks on any of these units, so that I could use it as a guide and record on top of it. Looking at the reviews there seems no mention inputs from a computer, only outputs to USB. Have I missed something crucial?

Any more thoughts...

Thank you again

 

[bunt]

I have a Tascam 788, so it's pretty old now. It has a coax digital input, so that would be realtime. In other words you would just be recording the MP3 from the output of your computer into the Tascam...
Somebody else might have a better way than that, and the newer models may have accounted for such an endeavor with USB? Sorry... I just don't know enough about the latest & greatest.
That said, I've never had a problem with this machine, the preamps are relatively decent and I really like it as an inexpensive multitracker... and, btw, it is a 24 bit machine

 

[oretez]

Equipment recommendations from across the pond can be problematic. Currency conversion is easy but VAT issues would require more research, etc. Then have no idea concerning reliable local suppliers.

but this those disclaimers and trying to do a rough cost/benefit available quickly kind of thing .. . at the moment the entry level cost/benefit champ goes to Zoom for the R16 ($400US, showing up b-stock & used for about $100 less). At first glance it might seem to have more features then you need but in this case it is not necessarily a bad thing. (the Edirol R44, Korg D888 would also suffice both are twice the price, R44 has half the tracks) The Zoom R16 basic interface should be easy to master. One or two wrinkles that are a little different then cassettes . . . in that you have to 'create' & 'name' a project before you can record. After that you basically plug a mic in, arm a track, hit 'record' and off you go. (hitting stop when you're done).

it uses what is the states is easy to find and inexpensive media to record to: SD cards (up to 32 gig cards) The recorded waves can be transfered (drag and drop) directly to computer (if you want additional computer based processing) and while you will need to learn and follow the R16's naming protocol . .. once that is done it is a breeze to drag and drop a wave (or MP3) from the computer on the SD card and add additional tracks in R16.

R16, if you don't have flash mem card reader connects directly to computer in one of two ways. First simply as a data source (copy files to & from). Second it acts as a recording interface. Plug a mic into R16 and record direct to computer.

The R16 has a built in mic, that while it will not win any awards (any time soon) is function for sketching ideas . . . thing is small enough that it, in a pinch, can even function as a speech/note recorder (in class rooms for example)

it is not perfect. Though nothing is. I am less then absolutely overjoyed about built quality. I have a korg D16 that has lasted 12 yr. I doubt the Zoom will make it that long, but 12 yr. ago the D16 cost almost 4 times as much, & was significantly less easy to use.

It is possible that the slightly less expensive Zoom H4 will also accomplish your task. But in addition to a smaller feature set, it, in a general way, has a slightly more awkward interface . . .

there are a vast number of other devices with a vast range of prices, features and robustness . . . while the usual disclaimers: no relationship with Zoom & acknowledgement that the device could be, for any specific individual, the worst possible choice; apply I was surprise by how much I ended up liking the R16 . For past four or five years I've been looking for something that represents an actual upgrade for the D16 (Korg) and the R16 (Zoom) was pretty much the first thing that fit the bill. Small, feature rich, easy to use.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Consider this additional support for the R16. I use its smaller 4 track cousin, the H4n, which BTW, would get your simple job done rather well. The R16 is only a little more money, and does a lot more. The H4n wins on portability, but if you don't mind a unit that is netbook sized, the R16, like its smaller relative, is simple to use, as they go, and loaded with features. The caveat emptor is that Zoom, and its parent company Samson, are known for building cheap gear of questionable durability. On the other hand, my H4n has survived a considerable amount of use over a year and a half, and never missed a beat, dropped a file, or screwed up in any significant way.

I think the two Zoom units are the way the standalone market segment is going- standalone card recorders that are *also* computer interfaces and controllers, designed to do a ton of stuff on their own, and more stuff when combined with a computer. The R16 is pretty much the only standalone in its price range that will record 8 tracks simultaneously, and has the mic inputs to do it, 2 with phantom power. It's hard not to love the thing. $400 new, $300 B-stock, plus the cost of a 16mb or 32mb card, just add mics and cables. All that's waiting now is for somebody to develop a really good, really cheap, microminiaturized preamp. For what they are, the preamps in the Zoom are pretty good, but I don't want to be caught claiming that they compare to John Hardy, Pendulum, Avalon, etc. Sorry, that happy day has not arrived yet. But for a cheap do-it-all portable system, the R16 rocks!-Richie

 

[iamjake05]

If all you're needing is to record vocal scratch tracks, I would recommend one of the Line 6 UX series. They work with almost any DAW, are incredibly easy to use, very flexible, AND you can pick one up for only like $120 new. Here's a link:

http://www.americanmusical.com/ItemSearch--search-line-6-UX--srcin-1

They have also one with a keyboard built into it called the KB37 I think. Hope this helped!

 

[IndustrialOkie]

You can get a nice Boss (BR-9?) for a few hundred bucks- all digital but I believe you have to export the files to burn them to CD.

 

[TeyshaBlue]

I'll throw in another vote for the R16. Good stand alone recorder. Good interface. Decent controller. Pre's are serviceable. Not great. Not a penalty box either.

Mine has held up remarkably well and it's traveled alot.

Good luck. Let us know what you decide on.

 

[Richard Monroe]

If all you're needing is to record vocal scratch tracks, I would recommend one of the Line 6 UX series. They work with almost any DAW, are incredibly easy to use, very flexible, AND you can pick one up for only like $120 new. Here's a link:

http://www.americanmusical.com/ItemSearch--search-line-6-UX--srcin-1

They have also one with a keyboard built into it called the KB37 I think. Hope this helped!

I believe the OP said he didn't want to be totally dependent on a computer.-Richie

 

[mjbphotos]

You can get a nice Boss (BR-9?) for a few hundred bucks- all digital but I believe you have to export the files to burn them to CD.

The BR 600 - not sure what they go for in the UK, but used in the US from $250 up. Pretty easy to use, only real drawback for a stand-alone is no phantom power.

 

[zarzuela]

I'd like to thank everyone who replied to this thread. A great wealth of information! I've been looking at the Bosses as well as Zoom - I've decided to use standalone, as there is too much other stuff on my PC and it would make life simpler. Then it's deciding which pre-amps to get....

HomeRec people - you have been truly helpful and I hope to get to that level of knowledge one day I know I will be lurking around a LOT on this site, it is great X

 

[Reek]

I'll add a vote for the Zoom. My friend has one and loves it.

I have had/used a MRS-8 for years(I use a Macbook now) and it was very simple to operate. I would say the R16 will be equally as easy.

As far as transferring the MP3 to the recorder, I know the R16 has a USB connection for import export. Plus I see you can link two of them for 32 tracks! Wow!