I like it quite a bit, within reason. I'll explain that qualifier in a minute.
I have the D1624 standalone 16-track HDR. I got it because it was a good balance between performance and price, and because it was actually available at the time. Had it for a couple of months now. I chose it over
the Tascam MX2424 because of price, availability, and the fact that they nickel and dime you to _death_ in putting together a usable configuration; and over the Mackie because I have exactly zero patience with vaporware. The Fostex arrived (well, arrived twice: the first one was DOA), got plugged in, and was in use right out of the box within 2 hours. My kinda machine, once I got one that was alive.
I have an old-world view of what a studio should look like: the multitrack is a box here, the mixer is a box there, the mastering machine is another box over there, there are lots of wires, and no computers in the room. When one box melts down, I can still work with the other two... So I wanted the 1624 to replace the multitrack tape machine in that picture. It does that very well, and it does offer some useful editing features (cut/copy/paste) beyond what you could hope for with tape. To me, it's a tape machine with no razor blades needed, and that's exactly what I wanted. Other folks might well loathe it, because the manual is written in an amusing form of Jinglish, and if you expect it to be a DAW-in-a-box, you'll be *hideously* disappointed.
However, for what I needed, it was the perfect machine: cost effective, decent converters, adequate basic editing capabilities, swappable drives for different projects, and with a simple transport-control remote I can relocate anywhere in the room, and not one damned thing more. I have a big leg up on the game over most newbies, because I have a definite working style already from my old analog days, and know what sort of hardware behavior I need to support it. Just because my working style evolved in the Cretaceous period don't make it a bad thang!
Anyway, to do that hack edit that I described to Stan Williams, I'd go set clipboard edit points on a chunk of the drum machine track, and scrub them until I had exactly the chunk I wanted, down to the sample. I'd then calculate the length of that (end time - start time). I'd set the paste point to be that length value *before 0*, and paste it onto some victim track. I'd then reset the "song start time" to that negative value. I'd probably copy 12 beats, to give myself a 4-beat pickup to make the countoff. Punch in some nice click 8-count, erase the reference blob, be happy. No one need ever know.
Like I said, I'm new to this digital recording stuff. For all I know, some decks may not let you paste before zero. No problem, if that's the case: scrub and set edit points as before, to get the length of the reference chunk. Then, move and paste all the track data for the *whole tune* from 0 to whatever that reference length value is ("making room" for it after 0). Then, paste the reference chunk in at 0, and it'll sit right before your original beat 1. I don't know that this is an issue with any real deck, but if it is, there's a workaround. There's _always_ a workaround, as long as you don't hit "format"...
Beats the living, breathing _hell_ out of demagnetizing razor blades and cleaning the oils off your fingertips with trichlor.
[Edited by skippy on 11-03-2000 at 10:19]