Studio-in-a-Box Right For Me?

[laure]

First off, sorry that I'm going to ask some questions that have no doubt been asked at least 2,378 times by other newbies. If I had the next five days free to search out info. from these obviously very comprehensive forums, I would!

Okay, so . . . I'm a complete beginner to home recording with a very limited budget, and I want to be able to do two very different things with the equipment I buy, so I'm looking for recommendations on how to set things up.

First thing (and my primary goal): I want to be able to "collect" sounds from the environment, bring them back home and manipulate them to create music.

Second thing (lower priority): I belong to a music group (vocals + several instruments--all acoustic except for the keyboard). I'd like to be able to record, mix, master and produce a CD of our stuff. My budget probably precludes this right now. We play ensemble, and my preference would be to record that way instead of track-by-track, which would involve lots of expensive mics/stands, finding (renting?) space to record, etc. Still, if I'm setting up a home studio, it's something I'd like to at least consider.

What I have so far is a PC computer (Dell Dimension 4100) with a basic soundcard installed in the tower. What I need is . . . well, everything else. Any advice at all is welcome, but here are some specific questions I have:

To "collect" sounds in a format that I can bring home and play with, I guess I need some sort of digital recorder and probably an external mic. When I search online for "digital recorder," all I find are the little voice recorder thingies that busy executives carry around to record notes to themselves. What do you even call what I need, where can I find it, and what should I expect to spend?

According to (please don't laugh) Home Recording for Musicians for Dummies, a studio-in-a-box system looks like it may be the way for me to go for mixing and mastering purposes . . . but do I really need one if I already have a computer? My computer currently has about 33GB of free space, but I do use it for lots of other things, including my Internet connection. Should I get a SIAB, or just mixing/mastering software for the computer I already have? (My preference is to have actual knobs and sliders rather than a computer mouse, but my preference will bow to my budget if it has to.)

I'm sure lots of other questions will spring from your answers, but that's good for starters, I think. Thanks in advance!

-laure

 

[giraffe]

First thing (and my primary goal): I want to be able to "collect" sounds from the environment, bring them back home and manipulate them to create music.

Second thing (lower priority): I belong to a music group (vocals + several instruments--all acoustic except for the keyboard). I'd like to be able to record, mix, master and produce a CD of our stuff. My budget probably precludes this right now. We play ensemble, and my preference would be to record that way instead of track-by-track, which would involve lots of expensive mics/stands, finding (renting?) space to record, etc. Still, if I'm setting up a home studio, it's something I'd like to at least consider.

these are almost mutially-exclusive goals.
to collect sounds you need something battery powered and portable like a mini disc player, or better yet (but way more expensive) a portable dat player.

then to be on the cheep you'd have to get one of thoes minature mics with a 1/8 output. (adding battery operated mic pres makes this expensive)

but that would only get you sounds, not provide you with a way to minuplate them.
then you would need a SIAB or some editing software in your computer to do what you wanted with it. (that, by the way, sounds like a job for a computer, but some of the SIABes are very versital)

i think i remember seeing a 4 track recorder that was battery operated in musicians friend or something that would kinda do both, but neithor as good as you want.

here's my temporary solution. (i'm thinking cheep here)
get a MD player, and one of the small plug in mics to capture outdoor stuff.

buy a dmp3, or similar cheep but useable pre amp, and a pair of small diaphram condencers, maby studio projects C4's (MANY BETTER MICS TO CHOOSE FROM ALSO) to hook to your computer.

get some cheep editing software please someone else sugest this , i'm not "in the know"

record your outdoor sounds on MD and bounce them into the computer for editing.

use the mics and the pre to put things directly into the computer.
spend A LOT OF TIME trying to get a good two track recording of the band.
it can be done.

you can also work on getting a good stereo recording of the kit, then add the rest of the band, one track at a time into the computer.

maby someone has a better solution.

have fun

 

[DunderXIII]

For audio editing only (WAVE editing) there's an open-source program called Audacity that does the job well. It can record a stereo source, add tons of effects and is comparable to other pricey solutions. (http://audacity.sourceforge.net/). I would suggest this for editing the audio files you willrecord in the wild.

If you want to record your band from more then two inputs I would suggest getting something like Cubase SE. Its very inexpensive and can do a lot for the price tag. It has limited functionality and fewer effects, but its a full-fledged sequencer nonetheless. I got a copy for 99$CAD, but I moved on to Logic Express after (but you don't have a Mac, you're out of luck ;-)).

 

[laure]

Thanks, Giraffe and Dunder . . . heh, I thought my goals might be kinda mutually exclusive. And I might have been misleading about my "collected" sounds . . . they're not going to be all nature--some will be, but I want to use machinery, people noises, and other things, too.

Actually, Dunder, I do have a Mac, but it's so old (a PowerMac 7300) I thought it wasn't worth mentioning. Would it be worth looking into using it strictly for recording/mixing purposes, do you think?

Okay, time to take your suggestions and start researching prices. I'll probably be back with more questions, but if anyone else wants to chime in here in the meantime, feel free!

-laure

 

[mshilarious]

According to (please don't laugh) Home Recording for Musicians for Dummies, a studio-in-a-box system looks like it may be the way for me to go for mixing and mastering purposes . . . but do I really need one if I already have a computer?

Nobody's laughing, believe me, if everybody read a book before they posted, we wouldn't get a lot of the "what is a cable and how do I plug it in" questions.

I think a SIAB would work well for you. They are portable, hands-on, and ready to go as soon as you plug them in.

You will probably want to mix in the SIAB and master on PC, but for now get the SIAB and learn how to record, that's a lot more rewarding than researching computer specs.

 

[Richard Monroe]

Yo Laure! Well, you have actually asked a doozy of a question. Reality check coming, and maybe a useful suggestion or 2. First, you have to figure out whether you are doing remote stereo recording, multitrack studio recording, or live studio recording. For capturing sounds in a remote environment (outside or wherever), you need a portable unit that can be battery powered, and either a pair of mics and a battery powered preamp, or a battery powered stereo mic.
For studio recording, you need the same thing, except it can be plugged into a wall. But understand this.- If you record in a studio in stereo, there is basically nothing to mix. It's stereo, end of the line. It's already mixed, 2 channels, left and right. It can be mastered, but that requires a miastering engineer, a shit load of very expensive gear, and a proper room, which alone could set you back the price of a good house. I'm guessing that we're starting a little smaller than that.
There are basically 3 ways to do studio recording:
1. You record the tracks one at a time. or maybe two. Then, you "mix down" to 2 tracks, left and right. You can do that with a SIAB or a computer with a specialized souncard, a mic preamp, and at least one mic. Upside- you can use less mics, stands, cables, space, etc. Downside- you can't all play at the same time, and the musicians have to have the talent to listen to the previously recorded tracks by headphones and add their's. This requires that they be not just musicians, but *recording artists*, which is an acquired skill, and requires hard work.
2. You do a "live" studio recording, where every damn instrument/vocalist/drum has their own mic, stand, cable, preamp, channel. Isolating the mics from each other is a major problem, and a mixer is needed to get all those channels. Hence, the humungous mixing consoles you see in pro studios. To do it right, multiple specially prepared rooms are often used. The mixer will output either 2 channels, which means you can't re-mix it after the fact, or groups of combined channels called submixes. How many of those you can do depends on how humungous your console is. Upside- Girls will be impressed by your massive mixer. Downside- Girls will be impressed by how much money it took to do this.
3. You do a live stereo recording, using just 2 mics, or one stereo mic (2 mics in a single housing). Everybody plays, and what you hear is what you get. Upside- it can be done pretty cheaply, and it can be very portable. Downside- if the mix isn't right going in, you can't fix it. The only solution is to move the musicians, move the mic, and play it again, Sam. Other downsides- you cannot process the different instruments and voices individually. It's a stereo mix. It can be mastered, but not mixed. Another downside- If you are using a couple of mics to record an ensemble, the mics have to be some distance from the players, so they can get the big picture. This increases the effect of the room on the recording. If it's a great room, it can sound great. If the room sucks, it can and will suck.

OK, that was the reality check. Here's the advice- Start with a good miniature portable rig (a micro-siab) that runs on batteries, and a good battery powered one point stereo mic. This is the kind of equipment you will need to capture those environmental sounds, anyway,and it will allow you to begin learning the arts of tracking, mixing, and processing.
Follow that with a good cheap soundcard,some basic recording software, a basic 2 channel preamp, and a few entry level microphones with some stands and cables. This will allow you to send the audio from the micro-siab to the computer, where it can be processed more effectively, exported as WAV files for professional mastering, and will provide higher quality sound reproduction either for one or two track at a time recording, or for live stereo recording. The alternative is to invest in a higher end siab, which will give you a bunch of mic inputs, preamps and tracks. Then you would dump the tracks from the portable rig into the big siab, and add the other tracks, either in ones and twos, or a bunch simultaneously. OK- back to reality check, I'm going to suggest some units with approximate pricing that would do the job. Note that I could go on for 30 or 40 pages about why I choose these units, and the selection of any one of these devices could be debated on this board for days, with dozens of competing suggestions.

mini-SIAB- Korg PXR4 Pandora- about $300- This 4 track digital recorder is a tutorial in basic multi-track recording. It's wicked small, very versatile, and sounds good. It has a bizzillion built in effects, which are rather usable. You'll need 1 or 2 128mb Smart media cards, about $36 each.

stereo mic- adequate-Audio-technica AT Pro24- $99 Better- Sony ECM-MS957- $250

You can do a hell of a lot with just that, but we need to get it into the computer or a bigger SIAB, so-
sound card- M-Audio 2496- $100
preamp- M-Audio DMP-3- about $160- 2 clean channels with mic inputs and phantom power for condenser mics.
software- This is not my strong suit, but Audacity, N-tracks, Sonar, or a bunch of others can do what you need it to do. Pricing is wildly variable.

If you decide on a higher end SIAB with a bunch of inputs, I like
Roland VS2000CD- basically $2000, but-
You get 8 channels in simultaneously with those hardware faders you want, complex mixing and routing capabilities, effects, the ability to burn CD's or export to computer, multiple mic inputs with preamps, and a boatload of mixing and mastering plugins, compression, multiband EQ, etc.

Although the SIAB is convenient, the computer will offer you more expandability, and more versatility.

Basic mics- I'd start with a pair of small diaphragm condensers, a matched pair- Marshall MXL603- about $180 for the pair. Good for stereo recording in the studio and instruments- acoustic guitar, mandolin, banjo, harp, small percussion, etc.
Next, an entry level vocal condenser- Marshall MXL V67- about $90
a good cheap dynamic mic- Senheiser e835 or Shure SM57- good on percussion and vocalists that don't sound good through the V67. $50-80 depending on new or used.

Well, don't get discouraged. Go get a Pandora, a couple of 128mb smart media cards, and a decent stereo mic, and go play. You'll be amazed at what you can do with just that. Even without a soundcard or preamp, for practice, you can use the mastering software in the Pandora, mix it down, convert to MP-2, dump it to your hard drive by USB port (the Pandora has one), rip it to MP-3, and burn CD's. If you're good enough, everything you want to do could be done with the Pandora and a stereo mic. It may not be a professional job, but you'll learn a hell of a lot trying to get the best out of that little bugger.

OK- my last advice- ****DON'T**** try to master this yourself. Send your finished mix in WAV format to a professional mastering house, and pay them to do it right. Check with Massivemastering on this board and he'll probably help you. There are plenty of pro mixing engineers on this board with $50,000+ worth of gear and years of professional experience who wouldn't try to master your stuff, they'd send you to people who have the room, the gear, the ears, and the experience to bring out the best in your recording. Best of luck on your project. Start by accepting that professional recording takes money, experience, money, hard work, money, practice, and money.-Richie

 

[laure]

Thanks, mshilarious and Richie . . . whoa! Especially Richie. What a bunch of great info you've just given me. I checked out the Pandora PXR4 on the Korg website, and also some of the posts here where you've championed it and cautioned about what it can and can't do.

Richie, you picked up on the fact that my budget is in the hundreds of $$ rather than the thousands right now. I know if I get serious about this I'll end up spending a lot more, but there's no point in buying high-level technology when I don't even know what to do with the basic stuff yet, and the PXR4 (combined with my PC and whatever software I end up with) looks pretty much like what I'm looking for as a mini "starter studio". I can't believe how small that thing is, and what it can do for its size/price!

Just a few questions about it. (Oh, and let's assume that recording my band is out of the picture for now. I suspected, and you've all pretty much confirmed, that I'd be getting in waaaaaay over my head--financially even more so than technically. I can always go back to that--for now, I'll focus on my own little "sound collecting" idea.)

So. First question. How well will the PXR4 work as a "raw sound" recorder? I understand it has 8 virtual tracks for each of its 4 tracks, so I'd effectively be able to grab 32 different raw sounds with it before having to dump them to my hard drive for safekeeping/manipulating. But would that be as simple as it sounds? (For instance, can you tag tracks with some sort of on-the-fly file name? Do you need to designate a track as being part of a particular "song" at the time of recording, or can you just open up a virtual track, record away, and sort the sound files out later on your PC?)

Second question. My new Dummies . . . err, bible, talks about the sampling rate for audio CDs being 44.1 kHz. The PXR4 specs list a sampling rate of 32 Khz. Let's just pretend for a minute that I really like what I come up with enough to share and even perhaps (*gasp!*) market. Is the lower sampling rate going to be a problem, or is it not that big of a difference?

Richie, you said:

Start with a good miniature portable rig (a micro-siab) that runs on batteries, and a good battery powered one point stereo mic.

Uhhh . . . this probably qualifies as the REALLY stupid question, but if the micro-SIAB (assuming here the PXR4) runs on batteries and has a mic input, do I need batteries for the mic, or does it run off the SIAB's power? ::blushing furiously:: Have mercy on a total newbie . . .

Finally, Richie, you mention elsewhere that Smart Media technology is on its way out and the soundcards will become harder to find. At my ultra-beginner stage, is that something I should even worry about in terms of getting a PXR4 (or anything else)?

Thanks again!

-laure

 

[Richard Monroe]

OK, Pandora tech- Actually, the sound on the Pandora is not bad at all, at least as good as an MP-3. I think you would be better off not using the virtual tracks for what you want to do. Just pre-create several "songs" and record each sound to its own track. When you''ve used up all 4 tracks, Just switch to a different "song" Then, rather than mixing down to MP-2, which combines the 4 selected tracks to 2, just play each track by analog line out into the line in on the soundcard, and give it its own file name. Then you can process the tracks in the PC, edit them, move them around and combine them as you see fit.
Don't combine the 2 processes. Capture the sounds in the Pandora, then record them into the PC for editing and processing. The Pandora will do 90 track minutes in high resolution. That's 4 tracks of 22.5 minutes. Then run them into the PC, back them up there, and erase the tracks in the Pandora. If you need more time in the field, just change cards. That's why I say get 2 cards at least.
I don't think Smart Media is a problem in the reasonably forseeable future. There's too many digital cameras out there that use them. That also means the cards are getting cheaper. You can find them easily on ebay. By the time you can't get Smart Media cards, that machine will be worn out, not to mention obsolete.
Is it simple? Not really. It will take you *months* to figure out all tha stuff the little bugger can do.
Battery power- Condenser mics use "phantom power", as a rule, which is fed back up the mic cable to the mic. Most portable recorders, including the Pandora, don't do that. No big deal. My ECM-MS957 will run for something like 200 hours on one AA battery. You'll want to run the Pandora on rechargeables, and carry a set of lithiums for backup. Note this. The 957 is a mid-side stereo mic. By design, you can't use just one of the 2 stereo tracks. The reason why is technical enough to confuse you right now. The AT Pro 24 will probably suit your needs better. By design, you can use it to record just one track, or a stereo pair. And yes, you can record your band. I've got some excellent recordings of the George Wesley band, a top reggae act, which were done with the Pandora and the SONY mic. You just have to get that mic to a place where it sounds good, and get you levels set so the thing isn't overloaded. You'll be amazed. Bands and orchestras were recorded in stereo for years, before the advent of sound-on-sound (early term for multitracking).
The Pandora will confuse the hell out of you for a while, but so will computer recording, or a SIAB, or anything else. It will take time and work to learn this craft. BTW, dynamic mics don't use phantom power, and they can be plugged into the Pandora also, but I've gotten generally better sound using one point mics, or an external preamp. Dynamic mics produce a very weak signal, and they need a lot of gain from the preamp, which asks a lot of the Pandora's little pres. Better to send it a signal that's fairly hot. I sometimes use it with a DMP-3 preamp as part of a micro-studio (briefcase size). Occasionally, in the studio, just for jollies, I jack my Avalon into it, whuch is kind of like a Ferrari powered Geo Metro.
I have no doubt that if you buy this thing, you'll be asking questions- How do I hook this up? Why isn't it working? What am I doing wrong? Deal with it. Audio engineering is a profession, like being an electrician, and there's a lot to learn. You will have to walk before you can run. The interesting thing is- the more you know about recording, the more amazing the Pandora is. I have used it for a bunch of stuff I'm pretty sure the manufacturer never intended, including a mic preamp for a talkback mic, and as a reverb unit for a live PA.
By the time you figure out all the stuff that little box can do, you'll know exactly what equipment you want and need. And- after you get that stuff, you'll still find uses for it.-Richie

 

[laure]

Awesome. Thanks again, Richie, for taking the time to really read my posts and respond so thoroughly.

I have no doubt that if you buy this thing, you'll be asking questions- How do I hook this up? Why isn't it working? What am I doing wrong? Deal with it. Audio engineering is a profession, like being an electrician, and there's a lot to learn. You will have to walk before you can run.

Oh, I intend to. HUGE learning curve on my horizon, I know. But it's good to get solid advice from the get-go to avoid wasting too much time so I can get right to the learning!

So two more VERY quick questions, and then I'll probably disappear for a while to go researching/shopping.

When you say "one point" mics, I assume you mean condenser mics?

Is it generally safe to buy gear on eBay if the seller looks reputable (I'm usually good at picking 'em), or would you recommend buying new from the manufacturer or reseller to get any guarantees/warranties?

Again, muchas gracias . . .

-laure

 

[Richard Monroe]

"One-point" is more or less a synonym for a stereo mic, meaning 2 mics in a single housing for stereo recording from a single point in a room. They usually have a fixed angle for the two capsules. Check Rode NT-4 for one example. The Nt-4 also runs on batteries, and would probably rock with the Pandora, but I've never tried it. Most engineers prefer 2 separate mics, which can be placed in a variety of configurations, but one point mics are often used for remote stereo recording with minidisc, direct to CD, cassette, or portable digital recorders. Your plans are a little different from most beginning recorders, and I think it will suit your initial recording needs very well. You may find that for recording a single track, sometimes the built in mic in the Pandora will do what you want.
One thing I forgot- You will need a good set of headphones. Consider Sennheiser HD280 Pro, $99. Then you will be able to hear what you are actually recording with whatever mic or mics you are using.-Richie

 

[laure]

Thanks again!

::glancing at clock::
"It's one o'clock, and time to shop. Hum-dee-DUUUUM-dee-dum."

(Ten points to whoever can name the lyrical reference!)

-laure

 

[A Reel Person]

I'm gonna throw a different spin on this, for a minute.

There's only one device I know of that will do field recording and multitrack recording with more than two inputs,... it's the Tascam Porta Two.

The Tascam Porta Two is an older 80's vintage model, that has 6 input channels, and records to 4-tracks simultaneously to tape in Direct mode, plus runs on batteries and has strap buttons for field use. The Porta Two is a VU-meter style unit, and records to cassette tape. The Porta Two (std) is a "normal" speed device, but the Porta Two HS is a "high speed" device, which will give you noticeably better high fidelity to tape. These are both Ebay-type items.

As I see it, the Porta Two can be used for field recording, plus your multi-channel/multitrack band recording. You can record and mix down on the same unit.

Also, the resulting 4-track tape recordings can be dubbed from the Porta Two (std or HS) to the 'puter, for further manipulation and/or burning to CD.

It's probably not the answer you were looking for, but that's my 2¢ worth.

 

[laure]

It's probably not the answer you were looking for, but that's my 2¢ worth.

Heh . . . I'm not turning down any advice at this point! But . . . recording to cassette tape? I know I'm on a shoestring budget here, but that brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Fidelity? Tape/machine noise? Method (and ease/difficulty) of converting to digital for computer manipulation?

Thanks for your 2¢ . . . wanna turn it into 10¢ or so?

-laure

 

[mshilarious]

Heh . . . I'm not turning down any advice at this point! But . . . recording to cassette tape? I know I'm on a shoestring budget here, but that brings up a lot of questions in my mind. Fidelity? Tape/machine noise? Method (and ease/difficulty) of converting to digital for computer manipulation?

A decent quality cassette 4-track recorder can be fine. However, I would worry too much about a unit with onboard batteries. You can get an inverter for your car, or simply carry along an inverter and a small 12V battery. SIAB's don't consume much power. Actually a plain ol' UPS would work pretty well, so long as you get a unit where you can turn off the alarm

 

[A Reel Person]

Eh,...

Based on your original post, (IMO), the Porta Two satisfies your needs on a both levels.

A) collecting of sounds in the field.

B) ability to record, mix & master your band's music.

Two worthy, but high demands to expect from one device.
(You're also on a budget.)

First, "collecting of sounds" implies "field recording", which then implies having the ability to run on batteries, if necessary or if so desired. The Porta Two works either on a standard AC adaptor for home use, or on batteries for actual field recording.

Then, "recording/mixing/mastering" of your band. This is a more demanding requirement. The Porta Two's built-in mixer enables you to do many complex mixing tasks, both in the recording and mixdown phase of production. It records 4-tracks simultaneously (to tape) in direct-mode, which gives higher basic production value than standard 2-track recorders.

Dbx is a noise reduction used on most Tascam Portastudios, that virtually eliminates tape hiss. Using Type II cassettes and dbx NR, the specs and sound quality of the Porta Two would be comparable to it's all-digital battery-operated counterparts, (being the PXR4, MR8, Zoom PS04, Boss BR-532, minidisc portables, etc).

You'd be using regular mics, so there's not a big concern of "tape machine noise" picking up on any recording, as you might get from any built-in type mics. The tape mechanism's remarkably quiet, anyway,... a non-issue.

In contrast, the PXR-4, MR8, BR-532 & minidisc portables have an internal mixing function that's used on playback, but there's no mix section that may be applied to the recording function. It's just 2-inputs, recorded raw and straight in. For any mixing of your live sound, an external mixer must be employed.

Also, the PXR-4, MR8, BR-532 & minidisc portables only record 2-tracks-simultaneously/max, which is fairly limiting. They may do 4- or 8- tracks total, but only 2-tracks at a time. In simultaneous recording mode, they're only 2-track recorders. The #-max-track/simul recording capability of a recorder becomes a very important issue in respect to hifi production of live music.

Recordings you capture on the (analog) Portastudio may be recorded over to the 'puter, for further processing, burning to CD, etc., through your soundcard.

Any battery operated recorder will record field sounds, but very few of them will do it with high fidelity, as well as be a recorder capable enough to fully produce your band,... in the "mixing/mastering" sense.

If you're looking for single recording device that's portable enough for field recording, (batt-op if necessary), AND will record/mix/master your band with a fair amount of complexity and high production value,... that's also affordable, then the Porta Two's it. It has all that in a small, portable package.

If I had to choose an all-digital unit from the field of battery operated recorders, I'd probably choose a Hi-MD, or Fostex MR-8, and call it a day. However, due to the lesser mix function and 2-track/simul/max hard limit, none of those all-digital/battery-operated recorders are as sophisticated a production tool as the Tascam Porta Two.

If you're talking about any other type of portable recording or band audio production with available AC line power, then my recommendations would be... another analog Tascam Portastudio! The Tascam 246 or 424mkII/III.

As always, YMMV.

Thanx for listening.

 

[Richard Monroe]

First, Laure, I would not dismiss A Reel Person's suggestion out of hand. He has forgotten more about cassette recording than I will ever know. As far as how the sounds would get to the computer from the Tascam- the same as the Pandora. You run the tracks from the line out of the Tascam into the sound card's line in, in analog, in real time, and process them in the PC using recording software. No difference. You're dealing with an audio signal, not a data file. The sound card does the analog to digital conversion.
I've got just one question Reel Person, and don't misunderstand me, I'm really not clear on what you mean when you say the Pandora has no mixer section. As far as I understand what a mixer section is, that's not true. You can apply different EQ and compression, fx, or whatever to the individual tracks. You can bounce tracks to create submixes, and export those submixes as audio signals, and then undo any of it (try that in analog). If you know how, you can use the line out as an aux send and process tracks through outboard equipment and route it back to the Pandora's line input onto a different track, or re-amp tracks. Please explain to me what it is that the Tascam's "mixer section" does that the Pandora can't do. The only thing I know of that it can do that the Pandora can't is record 4 tracks simultaneously with cool analog meters (which I admit I prefer to LCD level indicators). It can also record more data without changing cassettes/cards.
Please note that I, for one, believe your suggestion is as valid as mine, and I agree that what Laure wants to do could be done that way. I think cassette recording comes with certain up-sides and down-sides, like any other recording system. The biggest up-side is it's easy to learn and to understand, compared to a menu-driven digital recorder, and is relatively inexpensive. The biggest downside is that it involves moving parts, which create noise, and are subject to capstain drive failure, wow, flutter, etc. This is especially true of older, used units. I believe that done properly, Reel Person's suggestion could work.
On the other hand, the Pandora offers many capabilities you won't find in a cassette, such as a metronome for click tracks, drum tracks, a compressor,
noise gate, complex editing capabilities, track bouncing, seamless erasure of sections of tracks, zero mechanical self noise, undo capabilities, and a wide array of other features. I also understand that track EQ is more easily accessible on the fly on the Tascam. The BR-532 and the Zoom units I am only a little familiar with, so I really don't know what they can do. In short, I believe that the Pandora can do a lot more than Reel Person thinks it can, and the Tascam can do a lot more than Laure thinks it can.-Richie

 

[laure]

First off, Reel Person, thanks for your reply--that was considerably more than 10 cents! And no, I'm not dismissing the analog cassette tape concept out of hand--frankly, I don't know enough yet to do so. From what I gather, the Tascam might be the better choice if I decided to go with trying to record my group--more tracks simultaneously in a simpler way. Then again, it's less portable than the oh-so-light and small PXR4. Either way, it's a good suggestion, and price may end up being the deciding factor since my learning curve will probably be more or less the same on any machine of this type.

There are actually a couple of the PXR4s on e-Bay right now for $120-$200 or so, and one of the Porta Twos . . . but oops! That only has about 4 hours to go. Not ready to decide quite that fast.

I'll be interested to follow your discussion here to see what else I can learn. Thanks again for taking a newbie's questions so seriously.

-laure

 

[mshilarious]

If you're talking about any other type of portable recording or band audio production with available AC line power, then my recommendations would be... another analog Tascam Portastudio! The Tascam 246 or 424mkII/III.

I have a 424mkII that saw use up until a year ago, and you can definitely do high quality work on cassette. Tomorrow I'll try to post a track I did with a Peavey mixer, the 424, and a couple of Shure SM57s--definitely a humble setup, but it sounds very good. Of course I was recording actual talented musicians (as opposed to me) in a large space.

So I've nothing against cassettes, but a twenty year old unit for a newbie--could be problematic. The mkIII is still in production, I believe. There are also portable digital 8 track units that are available recently used.

 

[ethos]

According to (please don't laugh) Home Recording for Musicians for Dummies,

lol, hell yeah man, i own that book. very usefull. i read it a lot.

 

[A Reel Person]

... I'm really not clear on what you mean when you say the Pandora has no mixer section... Please explain to me what it is that the Tascam's "mixer section" does that the Pandora can't do... The only thing I know of that it can do that the Pandora can't is record 4 tracks... The biggest downside is that it involves moving parts, which create noise, and are subject to capstain drive failure, wow, flutter, etc. This is especially true of older, used units....-Richie

Richie,

I gave that paragraph a lot of thought and applied a heavy edit, to where it's hopefully more accurate. Please read my statements above carefully.

The PXR4 obviously mixes it's 4-tracks with an internal mixer. The mixer function is applied to the playback of tracks, only. Playback-mixer ONLY.

What the Pandora PXR4 (and others like it) don't have, is a mixer section that can be applied to the INPUTS, on the FRONT END OF THE RECORDING PROCESS. It's just two inputs, straight in.

I don't consider an "Effects Loop" being applied to the inputs the same as a "mixer", on the "front-end" (input-side) of the recording process.

A Portastudio, like the Porta Two and others, has a mixer section that can mix signals on the "front end" of the recording process,... mixing up to 6 inputs down to 2, where it will be recorded as a stereo signal.

"Front-end" mixing power is an important issue, which is why you'd often hear of hooking the PXR4 or MR8 to the outputs of another mixer. On the Portastudio, the mixer section may be used for "front-end" mixing during recording, as well as the obvious "playback-side" mixing for "final mixdown".


The PXR4 (and other's like it) have many advanced features that a standard Portastudio doesn't have, but the Portastudio has adequate patch points to bring those other accessories to bear by patching an external device into the loop, as needed.

I've emphasized that many Tascam Portastudio record up to 4-tracks simultaneously (max), and that is a lot more powerful than a simple 2-track simul/max recorder, the category of which the PXR4/MR8/BR532/ZOOM and handheld minidiscs all fit into.

On physical equipment breakdowns and maintenance,... I'm living proof that you may often find these vintage 80's Portastudios is like-new condition, that need no maintenance and play like new, as-is. I have many, many examples of that case, if you'd like me to trot them all out on parade. The only units I have that need repair are the ones I knowingly bought as "fixers".

The likes of the Porta Two was mentioned by virtue of it's capability of battery operation for true field recording. As you know, the field battery operated multitrackers is very limited.

Also, as I mentioned above, the mics used on the Porta Two would be standard mics with cables, so the "self" noise of the mechanism would not pick up on the recording, as you'd tend to get on "built-in" mic designs.

Eh,... I hope that clarifies further what I said, above!