B
bassout
New member
Is there anyone here who has gone from using a digital recorder (or any hard disk recorder) to software recording? Is it recommended to have both or is one significantly better than the other?
James Argo
Fancy Rock N' Roll
Nope. I used Cakey from the first cause it did MIDI, while ADAT did audio. in 1999, there was no way for me to keep using ADAT since Cakey finally did audio also, despite it's not that perfect back then.
I guess you just need to understand your workflow. IMHO:
PC recordist:
* Works most the time in permanent place (aka bedroom or basement)
* Thinks he / she will need to upgrade someday somehow
* Likes some chalange, and hope to get best performance by combination (hardware, OS, drivers, softwares, plugins, etc)
* Thinks expansion
* etc etc etc...
Digital recordist:
* Travels frequently
* Needs "all in one" handy tool
* Doesn't feel like build his equipment, but use it
* Preffer 'presets' than 'tweaking'
* etc etc etc...
I knew, there must be more reasons. Since I also work on movie projects, I'd like to have digital recorder for capturing on location. PC will do editing and finalizing things later.
Jaymz
I guess you just need to understand your workflow. IMHO:
PC recordist:
* Works most the time in permanent place (aka bedroom or basement)
* Thinks he / she will need to upgrade someday somehow
* Likes some chalange, and hope to get best performance by combination (hardware, OS, drivers, softwares, plugins, etc)
* Thinks expansion
* etc etc etc...
Digital recordist:
* Travels frequently
* Needs "all in one" handy tool
* Doesn't feel like build his equipment, but use it
* Preffer 'presets' than 'tweaking'
* etc etc etc...
I knew, there must be more reasons. Since I also work on movie projects, I'd like to have digital recorder for capturing on location. PC will do editing and finalizing things later.
Jaymz
B
bassout
New member
Thanks for the reply... Is the quality of recording pretty much equal on both platforms? Also, when it comes to mastering... are the presets out of the box pretty superb?
Farview
Well-known member
Software tends to handle the mixing a little better. (32 bit float vs. 24 bit summing) The recording quality has a lot to do with the interface you buy. There is no easy way to upgrade an siab.bassout said:
When a siab drive gets fragmented, you have to back everything off onto CD-R's and format the drive. (this can take hours) On a computer, you have a utility for that.
Mastering presets are all shit. The only way a mastering preset will work for you is if you mix the exact same song the exact same way that the programmer that came up with it did.
L
laptoppop
Musical Technogeek
I've used both standalone hard disk recorders, as well as ADAT tapes, and direct to Sonar.
When building my latest studio, I went direct to Sonar.
The dedicated standalone hard disk recorders have one big advantage - they just work robustly. To get Sonar as stable as they were has involved tweaking the OS and being careful about the IRQ structure, etc. etc. However, once the DAW is stable, its totally fine.
The quality of the sound you get is dependent on the hardware. It involves the entire signal chain, from mic to preamp to converters. If you put cheap hardware on your computer, you'll get a cheap sound. If you use a cheap hard disk recorder, you'll get a cheap sound. There's a reason that good RADAR hard disk recorders are 20 thousand dollars. The thousand dollar all-in-one studio boxes that promise the moon do not deliver the moon. They can sound OK, perhaps, depending on your music, your taste, and how critical your ear is.
I'm getting a sound that I think is better than the hard disk recorders I've used in the past. I'm running a Mackie Onyx mixer analog outputs into a MOTU 24i/o interface into the computer. I've spent about 3 thousand dollars on the interfaces. You won't get the same sound from a soundblaster card, or even a $150. interface. On the other hand, you gotta take what you got and do the best you can. There are a number of decent interfaces for decent money - it all depends on your budget. I just want you to have realistic expectations.
Templates are a starting point, not an ending point. You need to pay the price of hearing lots of your mixes in lots of places to understand how a mix will translate in the different places.
One of the biggest expenses in recording is the environment. If you record in a bad sounding room, it is going to be MUCH harder to make a good recording. If you mix in a room with an uneven frequency response, its going to be MUCH harder to make a mix that translates well.
You are asking good questions -- I just want you to know this is the beginning of the journey, not the end. Its totally cool to start with cheaper equipment and move on as your hearing improves -- virtually everyone does.
These forums totally rock for understanding gear. Another couple of resources for understanding rooms and acoustics is johnlsayers.com and realtraps.com.
Good luck!
-lee-
When building my latest studio, I went direct to Sonar.
The dedicated standalone hard disk recorders have one big advantage - they just work robustly. To get Sonar as stable as they were has involved tweaking the OS and being careful about the IRQ structure, etc. etc. However, once the DAW is stable, its totally fine.
The quality of the sound you get is dependent on the hardware. It involves the entire signal chain, from mic to preamp to converters. If you put cheap hardware on your computer, you'll get a cheap sound. If you use a cheap hard disk recorder, you'll get a cheap sound. There's a reason that good RADAR hard disk recorders are 20 thousand dollars. The thousand dollar all-in-one studio boxes that promise the moon do not deliver the moon. They can sound OK, perhaps, depending on your music, your taste, and how critical your ear is.
I'm getting a sound that I think is better than the hard disk recorders I've used in the past. I'm running a Mackie Onyx mixer analog outputs into a MOTU 24i/o interface into the computer. I've spent about 3 thousand dollars on the interfaces. You won't get the same sound from a soundblaster card, or even a $150. interface. On the other hand, you gotta take what you got and do the best you can. There are a number of decent interfaces for decent money - it all depends on your budget. I just want you to have realistic expectations.
Templates are a starting point, not an ending point. You need to pay the price of hearing lots of your mixes in lots of places to understand how a mix will translate in the different places.
One of the biggest expenses in recording is the environment. If you record in a bad sounding room, it is going to be MUCH harder to make a good recording. If you mix in a room with an uneven frequency response, its going to be MUCH harder to make a mix that translates well.
You are asking good questions -- I just want you to know this is the beginning of the journey, not the end. Its totally cool to start with cheaper equipment and move on as your hearing improves -- virtually everyone does.
These forums totally rock for understanding gear. Another couple of resources for understanding rooms and acoustics is johnlsayers.com and realtraps.com.
Good luck!
-lee-
B
bassout
New member
Thanks for all of the good advice. I've been reading a lot about Sonar 4 Producer Edition... There's going to be quite a bit to learn, but I think ultimately it will allow me more flexibility and precision in shaping my sound.
I'm going to run my keyboard, drum/bass machine, and mic through an Audiotrak MAYA 1010.
I've used Cakewalk before... so I should be able to get started recording in no time & take my time learning how to master my mixes *no pun intended*.
I'm going to run my keyboard, drum/bass machine, and mic through an Audiotrak MAYA 1010.
I've used Cakewalk before... so I should be able to get started recording in no time & take my time learning how to master my mixes *no pun intended*.
M
M Havlen
New member
Record on a digital recorder ( Boss, Yamaha, Tascam etc etc. ) then use your computer setup for editing. The best of both worlds...IMO
