is it worth it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dtb
  • Start date Start date
dtb

dtb

Well-known member
after a couple years using a Porta3 recording mostly my own stuff, guitars, rythum machine(bass & drums), other acoustic instuments and almost no vocals and then mixing down to cassette deck, is it worth it to go to some type of digital recorder if you don't want to use a computer? I am thinking of upgrading and have thought of staying with analog, maybe a 424mkIII or 488. I know I can find some digital recorders for a little more than a good used 488. Most of my recording has been direct except the acoustics which I just mic. The only other upgrade would be a stand alone cd recorder for mix down but I seem to be happy with cassette.
The digital stuff seems to have pretty good eq and would be great for punching in even though I seldom do that with my present set up.
Anyway thanks for any response or thoughts on this.

dtb
 
I think it is. I went to a Tascam 564 digital 4 track mini disc recorder about a year or so ago - picked a used one up pretty cheap. I only use Cakewalk as a sequencer, then run back thru my keyboards then into the Tascam. Bounce a few tracks down, add vocals, then out to a Sony cassette (but I'm saving up for the outboard CD burner) With the Tascam, I can go digital out to digital in on a CD burner and get a much cleaner recording than with tape. Also, with the digital, I can do cleaner punch ins, record 5 different takes on a single track, and pick the one I want. I think with the newer Yamaha digitals and Rolands you can do up to 99 takes - try that on a analog 4 track. For me it was worth the extra little investment.

mutt
 
the digital/analog difference is like night and day. there is no reason not to switch, you will really be glad you did
 
Like the above poster said...

The difference between the two is more than amazing. From your question it seems you'd like to stay away from computers...

If you do make the jump to digital I strongly suggest going with a computer based solution as opposed to a stadalone. The ability to upgrade alone makes it worthwhile. Not only that but the flexibility of a computer based system is superior without question. Plugins, a galaxy of software, midi, etc. Puchasing a standalone burner wouldn't be neccesary. Finally, the visual editing, and editing capability is worth more than all of the above. :)

If you are dead set against a computer solution then by all means buy a standalone or stick with analog if you like your results. Just something to think about.

-Val
 
Couldn't disagree more. Standalone rules in simplicity and usablility. And the PC will just be a pain. And, no, standalones really aren't that expensive if you compare them. You need a hefty computer, and if you think of installing other software on it, like games, you are begging for trouble, so you want it to be dedicated to music. And good soundcards aren't cheap either.

So, now you have two opinions, which will you trust?

No-one. Download the demo-version of some multi-track software and see if you like using that, or if it is a pain and a struggle as compared with the multi-track, and then you decide yourself.
 
OKay i will have to say in my opinion, that computers will smoke standalone any day. I made the jump form a Yamaha MT120 to a simple PC setup(PIII 733 128 RAM 20 gig 7200 rpm hard drive and SBlive) it obviously cost me more than the standalone i was looking at, but now that i can record around 12 - 15 tracks with a few effects here and there, it came with a CD burner so i can make my own demos, and bakc up everything i do, and i can download all kinds of plugins(for free) that make my stuff sound better. Now in my opnion, that beats a standalone.
 
A vote for standalone

I am currently using a roland VS840ex. I wanted something that I could put in a case and take to a friends house to do some recording. At the time, I was also sharing my computer with my wife so the computer based solutions would have cost me significantly more money than the US$850 that i spent.

I will say that the flexibility and scalability of a computer based system still intrigues me. My Roland does a great job at creating very high quality demos, but it is only 6/8 tracks and it does compress the data so there is some loss in quality. The VS840 is not really a tool for creating radio ready music.

Some people will argue that point,and I admit I have heard some wonderful recording done on the VS, but to use a lower level digital 8 track for creating radio ready material, requires so much more additional equipment that the actually recording device is of much less import than the surrounding pieces of the system.

I hope this helps.
 
Hmmm..............

Hey DTB, sounds like you got the same thing going on as I do. Two years ago I purchased the Tascam 564 unit and loved it!!! I just felt limited by the 4 tracks, so I did the trade in thing and then got the (new at the time, now discontinued) Fostex FD-8 digital multi-tracker. It has been an awesome machine, and I have done some decent stuff on it. Since digital has become so much more attainable, financially, I think you would be in good form to get yourself a digital set-up, nothing extravagant, just whatever suits your needs.... I love what it has done for the music I record, and I do not desire to do the computer thing, either, so a digital unit would probably be right up your alley!!! :D And as far as a mixdown deck is concerned, personal preference is the rule, but stand-alone CD-R's are super-duper groovy, I mean once you go to CD, you'll never want to go back to tape hiss, rewinding, not to mention tapes lose fidelity over time and get eaten by tape decks... CD's will, with the proper care, outlast us humans, or so it would seem!!! :p So, do what your heart and your music tells ya to, but just remember to keep it fun and interesting, or then it's all for nothing, huh?
Little Z (Steve)
 
Another vote for standalone

I currently use a VS-880 that I've had for over four years. I use it along with Cubase, having previously used it with Cakewalk, and also used it with Cubase. Thus I have the option of using either PC or standalone based recording.

IMHO, standalone trumps PC-based recording.

PC-based recording can be much more expensive than standalone once you add up a quality sound card, an adequate processor, adequate RAM, quality software, etc. Also, you get all of the problems with Windows and PC software/hardware, including lock ups, crashes, conflicts, poor support, etc.

However, one of the only things I prefer about PC recording is the visual editing. The GUI makes it much easier to visualize what you are doing.

Yet, the cohesiveness of the standalone makes it the winner. No conflicts. Everything is dedicated and optimized with a specific purpose. The ability to reach out and grab a knob to tweak something rocks. No fidgeting with a mouse onto icons. Just reach out and slap "record"/"stop"/whatever.

For my purposes, standalone wins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top