I use the CD recorder basically because it allows me to review the mix on the drive home from the show. I'll look at the Edirol you mention.
My next goal is to record multi-track so I can get better mixes in post. Looking for an expansion chassis like the Magma Express Box that would allow me to bring my MOTU 2408 and attach it to my laptop thus getting 8 tracks at once. Does this sound like a reasonable approach?
Thanks for replying. I'll need to read your posts a couple of times to make sure I get everything.
Over the years I might have used nearly every approach to tracking live performance that could be attempted on a budget (including several instances where the budget scaled to afford a genuine remote sound truck), starting with mono reel to reel and its built in mic.
The handful of experience derived wisdom tends to focus around a couple of things I've already said:
If it aint broke don't expect 'fixing' it to greatly improve quality
This networks nicely with idea that if you don't have clear idea of goals, expectations and limits of technology to articulate those goals your choices are going to be random and primarily based on magical thinking (Jimi used a stratocastor, therefore if I use a stratocaster I'll be as famous as Jimi! It's obvious) The 'problem' (which might not even be defined as a problem by most of a project's collaborators) to be fixed might well be best addressed by different mics, different mic distribution rather then assuming that additional 'channels' will permit things to be fixed in the mix. A serious delimiter of 'goal' has to be final distribution. Something that needs to be turned around in 72 hr. For Web cast flash distribution has different physical criteria then HiDef BluRay with separate DVD-A soundtrack. (not talking about quality of work merely physical, technical limitations of distribution)
This brings in the third clever rule of thumb: Three body problem: Quick, Cheap, Good! You get to choose two!
And my experience suggests that increasing number of tracks, for processing in post, does not increase effort arithmetically, leans in direction of geometric, depending on degree of obsession can border on exponential and occasionally (depending more on client then technician) drops into black hole of quantum shift per track
Personally even for down & dirty two track distribution I prefer at least four track recorders (in a pinch can use 3 but those are getting tougher to find), but if I either have no control over, or trust in, house mix then 8 track, to me, seems a perfectly reasonable approach. (but I also try to not do any of this stuff for free anymore so goals, expectations of clients is my primary delimiter . . . Plus I have to willing to stick my name on that final distribution (or it actually costs more, I'll do it crappy for more money, not less).
And the more stuff there is: more 'hand' hours it takes to load in load out set up tear down monitor; more stuff to go wrong and it is always a matter of 'when' not if something fails. Using a set up similar to what I've used for years exactly the same as what I had used every two weeks since end of March experienced a difficult to diagnose problem that was based on a power strip 'clipping', unable to transmit current @ voltage, intermittently. If we had suddenly had increased current demands for our gear, if it was (on subsequent tests) relegated to one specific circuit (@ one venue), if it was due to failure of power strip; issue would have been much easier to understand. Fortunately, while power strip continues to work fine at home, was able to retire it that night because I had two backups. (interestingly enough in the studio had a power strip disintegrate from the inside out during the same week, which I replaced from one at the house and the one that 'clipped' during show replaces that home unit . . . Slightly more then arithmetic complexity) But I'm also quite sure that within the month I'll experience an issue for which I am not already carrying belt and suspenders (or two belts + suspenders + vehicle capable of transporting, time to load in load out, etc.). Whether expansion chassis (have used PCI docking stations + laptops to track up to 24 tracks) + MOTU 2408 (used f/w 828 in both original & MkII variants for a number of years) is 'reasonable' for you can only be determined by you
Whether it's reasonable depends on your goals not on the gear itself . . . The gear you list is provided by relatively dependable vendors, it does the job it was theoretically designed to do (this excludes marketing claims entirely, which are drug pusher inducements to magical thinking). Your Tascam CD recorder is never going to magically crowd 3 hr. Of 16/44 data on a single disk . . . But it might well continue to do an excellent job of tracking 79.9 min of 16/44 that you can review on the way home for a lot of years (my current player in the truck has SD slot so audition CD's are gradually giving way to more flexible SD cards . . . But this happened as natural migration, process I used didn't have to change merely the required hand held recorder when back to using media that was also efficient in the studio (not unlike audio cassettes) introducing CD-R's was, on the other hand far more problematic and if Minidisc tech had ever been more robust I might have sidestepped much of the CD-R (for music) entirely . . . But Sony, yet again had entirely dysfunctional marketing and the media was far too expensive, but again what's reasonable for me should not be same for anyone else)
Without knowing goals and expectations it is impossible to say whether any individuals approach to specific gear is 'reasonable' or a function of magical thinking. I don't particularly like stratocasters but there is no 'reasonable' objective reason to not select that tech as a primary instrument. But to select that gear with expectation that it will make one as famous as Jimi is 'unreasonable'. I am fairly certain OP was cognizant of most of that . . . Also fairly certain that they 'knew' their gear already did the job it was designed to do . . . One does not typically get to Magma chassis without some awareness of tech limits
Initial question revolved around issue for which there is a lot of subjective speculation (quality vs. File specs, opinions concerning quality of convertors (though he did not specifically address that) on Tascam unit, etc. . . . Unfortunately, not merely more novices, all aesthetic fields of endeavor are saturated with magical thinking you can't avoid it . . . You can't even avoid participating it: 16 bit files have these parameters, 24 bit these. Which is better? Objectively, except within context of specific content, specific project who knows? If 'content' consisted primarily of a live performance, in a converted bowling alley, of harmonium, tracked via a pair of $100 SDC omni's I would be hard pressed to 'objectively' make a case for 24 bit being 'better' (though if paid enough money I'd certainly be willing to try) If someone is pursuing home recording solely as 'hobby' their own material for their own edification I pretty much don't have any opinion about anything . . . If someone is seeking to provide a service to 3rd party clients then the guiding principles tend to flexibility, tools that provide the best cost/benefit across the range of anticipated endeavor
