M
mrx
New member
robjh22p.s. n tracks is $50??? Why is cooledit and cakewalk so popular at $300?[/QUOTE said:
A
ACIDBANDIT
New member
robjh22 said:
Amateur? HA. who said anything about being an amateur? I've been mixing, sampling, and creating multi-tracked music on my comp since I discovered IMPULSE TRACKER when I was making music out of my mom's basement at age 15 (and if your thinking to yourself, "what the hell is impulse tracker?" just google it and you will discover yourself a wonderful peice of DOS software that as primitive as it appears, was a foundation for great software like n-tracks that you have today)
I'm trying to move away from the whole computer thing, I already spend alot of time on the computer posting here or researching information on music gear, technique, prices etc. Sure, I could record all my crap on the mr8 in my studio, then bring it over to my comp... and the go back and forth, back in forth, back in forth but to me that's just a pain in the ass. It's not convenient, and not everyone has the same setup and space to make it convenient. I'd rather have all the tracks available to me right in my workspace, without a computer to mess around with. It's all a matter of preference if you ask me, some people will love working with software to mix, add effects to their music. Others prefer actual hardware, buttons, knobs, sliders etc. I prefer sitting in my studio tweaking with buttons and knobs, getting the sound just right.
How can you say too many tracks is just an opportunity to make mush? According to your statements and what n-track is capable of, it has 88 tracks for mixing/mastering. A simple DAW that I would want has 16 tracks. Wouldn't a 88 track peice of mixing software create more mush, then a 16 track machine? Remember those were your words, not mine
It's a matter of personal preference.
R
robjh22
New member
?
An amateur means non professional. It doesn't mean you aren't good. But 88 tracks is absurd for mst of us. It's an opportunity to make mush, not a recipe for mush.
Good luck. If you can handle all those tracks, you da man!
An amateur means non professional. It doesn't mean you aren't good. But 88 tracks is absurd for mst of us. It's an opportunity to make mush, not a recipe for mush.
Good luck. If you can handle all those tracks, you da man!
D
dave in toledo
New member
mrx
i like that, less inclined to steal the program ( you are very insight full, i mean it, that is really inteligent thinking,... flavio is smart for figuring that one out too....)
never thought of it that way.....
i like that, less inclined to steal the program ( you are very insight full, i mean it, that is really inteligent thinking,... flavio is smart for figuring that one out too....)
never thought of it that way.....
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
robjh22 --
As an English teacher, I am annoyed with the grammatical errors in the VF80 manual, but the directions are clear overall. I understand there's a learning curve, however.
nTrack is low-key. You and I have heard of it, but you don't see it advertised in gear catalogs -- they keep their price down, and we get a great product. For all the cash I've spent over the years on this hobby, $50 for nTrack was the best buy. CoolEdit and Cakewalk are popular because they are widely marketed. Pepsi and Coke bring in billions of dollars, but when you think about it, they're really rather nasty drinks, aren't they? Why don't we drink more iced tea or water? Because they aren't shoved down our throats, literally. If we could just get past the pretty packaging...
G
As an English teacher, I am annoyed with the grammatical errors in the VF80 manual, but the directions are clear overall. I understand there's a learning curve, however.
nTrack is low-key. You and I have heard of it, but you don't see it advertised in gear catalogs -- they keep their price down, and we get a great product. For all the cash I've spent over the years on this hobby, $50 for nTrack was the best buy. CoolEdit and Cakewalk are popular because they are widely marketed. Pepsi and Coke bring in billions of dollars, but when you think about it, they're really rather nasty drinks, aren't they? Why don't we drink more iced tea or water? Because they aren't shoved down our throats, literally. If we could just get past the pretty packaging...
G
jfrog
uber-nerd
robjh22 said:
The VF's are easy to use, even for those of us who had never recorded before. The virtual tracks are a great place to store alternate tracks, in addition to my previous post.
M
mrx
New member
ACIDBANDIT said:
Unfortunately with price pressure, it's almost impossible to find a self contained unit with knobs, and marketing BS is such that you don't even get faders on many of your 'tracks'. The new Tascam "24" track has no knobs (other than some trim pots) and only 12 tracks are actual mono tracks with faders - the other 12 are stereo pairs where one fader controls both. Not to single out Tascam - Korg, Zoom, etc. do the same thing.
You may find that these 'self contained' workstations are a bigger pain in the arse than expected. (There's a Tascam user forum on another site that goes into great detail about the 2488 - you might want to check that out to get a feel for if it would be a good solution.)
junplugged
Taking the slow road
Some manuals may be translated.
Old pro's made old music with old production standards. For $300 you can get more than they ever had, it's true, but in these modern times, we are all competing with slick. And listeners get jaded and can't look deeper into a recording like we can to get some good stuff out of it. I can listen to the crappiest recording possible and still enjoy it if there's music there that I can hear at all. My sister has an old cylinder player, cranked by hand and I can dig that. Recorded by all manual mechanical forces and a needle attached to a big diphragm that moves in relation to the air pressure of the sound waves against it. And reproduced the same way. It sounds amazingly real, if you can get beyond the low level and the scratching sound, like sandpaper scrubbing the mic....
Old pro's made old music with old production standards. For $300 you can get more than they ever had, it's true, but in these modern times, we are all competing with slick. And listeners get jaded and can't look deeper into a recording like we can to get some good stuff out of it. I can listen to the crappiest recording possible and still enjoy it if there's music there that I can hear at all. My sister has an old cylinder player, cranked by hand and I can dig that. Recorded by all manual mechanical forces and a needle attached to a big diphragm that moves in relation to the air pressure of the sound waves against it. And reproduced the same way. It sounds amazingly real, if you can get beyond the low level and the scratching sound, like sandpaper scrubbing the mic....
A
ACIDBANDIT
New member
mrx said:
Been there, done that. The tascam user forum was a great help to me. It made my decision clear not to buy the machine.
The mr8 is clear and simple to use. It took me no more than a day to grasp it's basic functions. I don't see how a VF160 could be anymore complicated then using a program on a computer. Any machine will have some kind of learning curve. No kind of electronic machine with computer functions you buy these days is easy and without it's share of problems. A machine is a machine, and it's far from perfect. That is to be expected, and I am fully aware of that. I am simply interested in a 16 track because that's all I want. Not only that, but it happens to come with a hard drive and a cd recorder, at a reasonable price. Technology is becoming more effecient and affordable which makes it easier for home users like me to do what they want to do, without the use of a computer. I see this causing no pains for me.
Like my previous post stated, it's all a matter of preference. N-tracks provides 88 tracks, and I simply have no use for that. I can't imagine how anyone could.
M
mrx
New member
Interesting to see you got the same impression from the Tascam forum - what turned you off?
I'm in the same boat as you regarding moving beyond the MR-8 (albeit still using a computer) and keep coming back to the VF160. With sixteen actual mono tracks with faders it's like the last of a dying breed.
Still want to know what the extra $200 buys for the 'EX' version - blurb only says more stable OS and faster CD burning...
I'm in the same boat as you regarding moving beyond the MR-8 (albeit still using a computer) and keep coming back to the VF160. With sixteen actual mono tracks with faders it's like the last of a dying breed.
Still want to know what the extra $200 buys for the 'EX' version - blurb only says more stable OS and faster CD burning...
A
ACIDBANDIT
New member
mrx said:
I believe in my american musical or musicians friend catalog, the EX version was the one that came with a 40 gig HD instead of a 20 gig. A upgraded OS is a possibility as well, and maybe even a faster cd-burner. Maybe one of us should call one of those 2 and find out for ourselfs. I am very interested to know
A
ACIDBANDIT
New member
mrx said:
Well, the whole pairing tracks thing and the way the fader/slider system is arranged. The display looks really uncomfortable to slave over for many hours (which I know I would be doing, I do it already with the mr8 display but that is at least bearable to me). All of the effects are controlled within submenu's, menu after menu of cryptic uncomprehensive controls it seems. Also, the fact that some users were reporting serious malfunctions with their machines (recording errors, weird system errors comparable to a Windows "Blue Screen Of Death" with unrecoverable data, etc) and lackluster support from Tascam themselfs (in most cases, users called tech support and they referred them to the tascam2488 forum WHICH IS NOT EVEN RUN OR SUPPORTED BY TASCAM, people would be lost without that place!) However, the malfunctions reported by users was just a small fraction of people and of course that can happen with ANY machine, just as I stated in my previous post (a machine is a machine, and it will have problems). These tascam problems made me just a little timid thou. I looked into it enough to make me realize just how much more I like the Fostex approach
groucho
Member
AB, all due respect, but eventually you'll come to your senses and do yer mixing on the computer. Here's why:
EFFECTS!
The fact that you're looking at the low-end Fostex HD recorders tells me that (like most of us) you're not a millionaire.
Given your lack of a million dollars, how on earth are you going to get ahold of a quality hardware compressor, eq, reverb, delay, etc. etc.? You're sure as hell not going to rely on the Fostex effects, which are - and I think we're all agreed on this one - utter garbage.
What do you do when you don't have a million bucks to spend on hardware? You get a cheap little Fostex to capture the signal in uncompressed audio, and you dump it over to the 'puter for editing and mixing. It's a no-brainer.
You seem hell-bent on making things as "simple" as possible (and I have some sympathy for the impulse there - really, I do) but your music should come first right? And I'm sorry, my man, but if you're even going *near* the Fostex effects, you're dead in the water.
Go ahead, disagree with me. But you'll cave sooner or later.
Cheers,
Chris
EFFECTS!
The fact that you're looking at the low-end Fostex HD recorders tells me that (like most of us) you're not a millionaire.
Given your lack of a million dollars, how on earth are you going to get ahold of a quality hardware compressor, eq, reverb, delay, etc. etc.? You're sure as hell not going to rely on the Fostex effects, which are - and I think we're all agreed on this one - utter garbage.
What do you do when you don't have a million bucks to spend on hardware? You get a cheap little Fostex to capture the signal in uncompressed audio, and you dump it over to the 'puter for editing and mixing. It's a no-brainer.
You seem hell-bent on making things as "simple" as possible (and I have some sympathy for the impulse there - really, I do) but your music should come first right? And I'm sorry, my man, but if you're even going *near* the Fostex effects, you're dead in the water.
Go ahead, disagree with me. But you'll cave sooner or later.
Cheers,
Chris
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
I agree. They're pretty awful. I am doing just as groucho describes, and it works the best for me (I, too, was holding onto the hope that, miraculously, the Fostex effects would be good...oh, well).
G
D
dave in toledo
New member
effects
i have found some unbeleivable vst effects, clasic limitor and compressor can bring my mixes up to comercial volume.. littlerlly thousands to choose from , many are free, i do have a pa and effects rack with eqs, and compressors, but i rearrly need them with the computer......
my mixes have gone from sounding like something made on a daw to unbeleivable quality....
i have found some unbeleivable vst effects, clasic limitor and compressor can bring my mixes up to comercial volume.. littlerlly thousands to choose from , many are free, i do have a pa and effects rack with eqs, and compressors, but i rearrly need them with the computer......
my mixes have gone from sounding like something made on a daw to unbeleivable quality....
A
ACIDBANDIT
New member
groucho said:
Effects? Reverb? Compressor? WHOA, Slow down there! Who said anything about all of that? What I do is simple, basic music. I know the fostex effects are garbage, I don't even use what little effects/simulation there is on the mr8.
If I'm so hellbent on keeping things simple, why would I want to add all those effects to begin with? Your comments are contradictory. If the music is good, and all your gear is tweaked right the FIRST time around so you don't need the effects to begin with. To me it simply doesn't matter. If I want a "picture-perfect" sound so to say, I'll go record it in a professional studio. I appreciate the suggestions, but it's not my preference
groucho
Member
Er... okay. I guess I assumed you were a little farther along than you are. When I read this:
I assumed by now you had dicovered EQ, Compression, etc. Anyway, let me hip you to something, AB: even "simple basic music" uses eq, compression, reverb, etc. And all these wonderful (and necessary) tools are no longer the exclusive domaine of "professional studios". In case you're late to the party, that's kinda what the whole home recording revolution is about!
That's why people spend a few bucks on software like Cool Edit or Cakewalk or N-tracks. Because these programs come with a mess of plug-ins that are more than adequate for a home recorder (and there are plenty more freebies floating around out there). Whoever said it in a previous post is correct: these little hard disc recorders are intended to be used in conjunction with computers. Otherwise you're senselessly cutting yourself off from a lot of options.
I'm afraid that's just not true. But you'll figure it out in time. I'd guess a year from now you'll read your posts in this thread and have a good chuckle. Anyway, just consider this a little friendly advice. Take it or leave it.
Cheers,
Chris
ACIDBANDIT said:
I assumed by now you had dicovered EQ, Compression, etc.
Anyway, let me hip you to something, AB: even "simple basic music" uses eq, compression, reverb, etc. And all these wonderful (and necessary) tools are no longer the exclusive domaine of "professional studios". In case you're late to the party, that's kinda what the whole home recording revolution is about!That's why people spend a few bucks on software like Cool Edit or Cakewalk or N-tracks. Because these programs come with a mess of plug-ins that are more than adequate for a home recorder (and there are plenty more freebies floating around out there). Whoever said it in a previous post is correct: these little hard disc recorders are intended to be used in conjunction with computers. Otherwise you're senselessly cutting yourself off from a lot of options.
ACIDBANDIT said:
I'm afraid that's just not true. But you'll figure it out in time. I'd guess a year from now you'll read your posts in this thread and have a good chuckle. Anyway, just consider this a little friendly advice. Take it or leave it.
Cheers,
Chris
gmiller1122
Addled but happy
Well, THAT sounds familiar. I, too, once questioned the whole EQ, compression, etc. thing. "Who needs it?" I asked. But sound is a funny thing. When you record, your signal is so colored by your equipment / setting that your basic track doesn't sound 'correct'...so it takes EQ, etc. to make it sound more real. Ironic, isn't it?
Chris is right.
G
R
robjh22
New member
?
Okay, I want to hear more. I do everything on the Fos vf80 (a couple coustic guitar tracks, vocals, harmony). I use the eq settings, a little reverb and pan. The compressor(s?) make everything sound so awful I don't use them, but, and please read this next line twice:
does the vf80's compressor really suck or is it just that I don't know how to use compresion? I question whether giving me a better compressor is going to change anything, just like my 15 year old can't drive a Mercedes any better than she can drive a used Honda.
I too want to keep things simple, not only because I am simple-minded, but because I work for a living and have not even mastered all the vf80's features. Add the learning time for n tracks and I wonder about cost-benefit.
Same with eq: the vf80's eq'ing capabilities seem limited (only 2 settings on individual tracks, 3 in mastering mode), but is more sophisitcated eq'ing going to make a difference?
Reverb? In all honesty, the vf80's reverb sounds okay to me.
This whole post is a long way of asking what specific effects on the vf80 suck, and in what way that n-tracks can improve on? I'll try it if you really think it will make that much difference.
p.s. I admit I have some frustration trying to do this sound envelope business on the fostex to make the song end and taper off the noise at the end gradually so the track doesn't die so abruptly.
Okay, I want to hear more. I do everything on the Fos vf80 (a couple coustic guitar tracks, vocals, harmony). I use the eq settings, a little reverb and pan. The compressor(s?) make everything sound so awful I don't use them, but, and please read this next line twice:
does the vf80's compressor really suck or is it just that I don't know how to use compresion? I question whether giving me a better compressor is going to change anything, just like my 15 year old can't drive a Mercedes any better than she can drive a used Honda.
I too want to keep things simple, not only because I am simple-minded, but because I work for a living and have not even mastered all the vf80's features. Add the learning time for n tracks and I wonder about cost-benefit.
Same with eq: the vf80's eq'ing capabilities seem limited (only 2 settings on individual tracks, 3 in mastering mode), but is more sophisitcated eq'ing going to make a difference?
Reverb? In all honesty, the vf80's reverb sounds okay to me.
This whole post is a long way of asking what specific effects on the vf80 suck, and in what way that n-tracks can improve on? I'll try it if you really think it will make that much difference.
p.s. I admit I have some frustration trying to do this sound envelope business on the fostex to make the song end and taper off the noise at the end gradually so the track doesn't die so abruptly.
Lt. Bob
Spread the Daf!
Well ........ I've always thought that EQ is absolutely neccessary but I still don't record on a 'puter. I have EQ on my board and several Rane units sitting around if I need something more detailed.
And while I can't speak for the Fostex FX and comp 'cause I've never used them, I can say that not everyone finds compression to be a necessity.
In fact, I HATE compression and virtually never use it. I hate the way it sounds and much prefer to just keep an eye on the meter.
Now before someone condescendingly tells me how I'll learn in time ........ I've had a studio since 1970 so I've got plenty of experience and knowledge about it. I just don't like compression ........ and I'm not alone either. Plenty of big name producers hate the current trend towards more and more compression. I just read a book on the subject and I'm drawing a blank on the names ...... only one I can think of is Don Was ........ but he was just one of a suprisingly large list of folks who avoid compression whenever they can.
Lastly ......... the only important thing is the music that results ........... whatever works for you is fine ......... there are no absolutes in this art form and what's a neccessity for one person might not be so important for someone else. It's supposed to be fun and creative ...... it's not a situation where someone is stupid because they don't just accept that your way and only your way is the right way to do it.
And while I can't speak for the Fostex FX and comp 'cause I've never used them, I can say that not everyone finds compression to be a necessity.
In fact, I HATE compression and virtually never use it. I hate the way it sounds and much prefer to just keep an eye on the meter.
Now before someone condescendingly tells me how I'll learn in time ........ I've had a studio since 1970 so I've got plenty of experience and knowledge about it. I just don't like compression ........ and I'm not alone either. Plenty of big name producers hate the current trend towards more and more compression. I just read a book on the subject and I'm drawing a blank on the names ...... only one I can think of is Don Was ........ but he was just one of a suprisingly large list of folks who avoid compression whenever they can.
Lastly ......... the only important thing is the music that results ........... whatever works for you is fine ......... there are no absolutes in this art form and what's a neccessity for one person might not be so important for someone else. It's supposed to be fun and creative ...... it's not a situation where someone is stupid because they don't just accept that your way and only your way is the right way to do it.