Where to upgrade

[Aristo]

I currently have an analogue mixer and 4-track setup but I want something better than tape to go to.

Unfortunately I only have an old laptop (450Mhz, 128Mb RAM) so getting a 1010 PCI card is a non-starter cos I don't want to be spending anything like £1k on new kit at this stage. However, my recording options seem to be limited if I don't go to a PC.

Are there any reasonably priced HD multitracks I could use to record from my mixer and then play back from to mix down. I should be able to loan a CDR to record demos but I need a 1/2 decent way to record and mix from first. Unless we do it all in one of course

I won't need more than 6 tracks on the mutitrack since drums I will put through on 1 bus, maybe 2, and I don't expect more than 4 other sources. Might even be able to get away with 4 tracks but it's a struggle right now with the 4-track. And anyway some flexibility is always good right

All suggestions welcome.

 

[Aristo]

Feel a bit silly replying to myself.

Ok I've been having a look around and it looks as though the tascam 788 could be quite a good bet for me.

Does anyone have any experience with one of these? Or does anyone know of any better options?

Cheers

 

[Rokket]

Feel a bit silly replying to myself.

Ok I've been having a look around and it looks as though the tascam 788 could be quite a good bet for me.

Does anyone have any experience with one of these? Or does anyone know of any better options?

Cheers

I've seen on several music suppy stores (like Musician's Friend, et al) that the Tascam 788 has been discontinued Look into a Fostex MR-8, or even the Tascam Pocket studio. Search the internet about Zoom products, they make some decent stuff. If price is an issue, the MR-8 is only $300.00 US.

 

[manning1]

another alternative would be to get a cheap amd sempron pc. these will do 40 track multitrack recording. put a delta sound card in it.
if you want more tracks just mix to stereo and add 38 more tracks etc.
if you want an overview of digital recording try the free tutorials
in the support section at pgmusic.com. also view the video of powertracks at the same site. youll find it will make you think about alternatives.
maybe for the longer term. if you shop wisely pc plus sound card and software should come out around 650 bucks. but standalones are certainly an alternative as well. it depends what you feel more comfortanble with.

 

[Ronan]

I want something better than tape to go to.

It does not exist yet.

 

[Ronan]

I want something better than tape to go to.

It does not exist yet.

 

[Aristo]

It does not exist yet.

Perhaps but there sure is better than my current recorder - to be accurate. Is there a good & reasonably priced tape recorder?

I am in computers/electronics so a pc could be a good way to go eventually since I know what I'm doing with them but surely there must be a more portable, cheaper, less noisy dedicated HD solution out there. I mean pc's are ok but they're general machines and Windows is not really a real-time OS. Is this not a limitation for recording multiple tracks?

What do people think of the Zoom MRS1608 or MRS1266 ? They seem to have enough for me as well as USB connectivity and the option of a CD-writer for backup which could be useful - would anyone use the CD-writer on these systems? I could back up to my laptop with USB but I guess keeping a final set of tracks for a song on CD for future mixing would be useful.

 

[manning1]

aristo . huh ? your in computers ? and you dont know windows can record in real time ? of course it can. millions of us have been doing it for years.peace.

 

[Aristo]

aristo . huh ? your in computers ? and you dont know windows can record in real time ? of course it can. millions of us have been doing it for years.peace.

Good to hear it can handle music, but it can't handle everything real-time, i.e. it's time resolution is crap so if you call a time-dependant function it will only be accurate to within so many ms which means that delays and so on are not true. If this is accurate enough for music then cool, but I thought I should ask if there were any known probs. I just figured that any dedicated h/w would use a better archetecture and a proper real-time embedded OS.

I'll search under your name for tips on what should be in a box though, you seem to be the man with pc's and music, cheers.

 

[MichaelM]

there must be a more portable, cheaper, less noisy dedicated HD solution out there. I mean pc's are ok but they're general machines and Windows is not really a real-time OS. Is this not a limitation for recording multiple tracks?

1. Decent laptop with firewire interface.
2. Build a computer - doesn't have to be completely top spec for audio
3. You can get quiet cpu coolers, fanless power supplies, or whole fanless systems.
4. Even with my computer (XP2000, 52MB RAM home computer, not dedicated DAW) I can record 8 tracks of 24bit 96k audio simultaneously and play back around 16 with some effects.

time resolution is crap so if you call a time-dependant function it will only be accurate to within so many ms which means that delays and so on are not true.

Delays and other effects aren't implemented as a function that is called every so often, they are calculated for each individual sample so this is not a problem for audio effects. Windows isn't ideal though, but you can do some tweaking to get it to perform better (http://www.musicxp.net)

Really it depends on what you would feel more comfortable with. I have no problems with computers, and they are a more flexible option for what I need.. Other people prefer dedicated hardware DAWs because they are an all in one solution, that should work without any hassles right out of the box, and might be a more stable (not tempremental like windoze) recorder.

 

[manning1]

aristo. with greatest respect .....i dont know where you learnt computer
engineering, but i would suggest you look at the windows developer documentation sometime from MS. i'm a computer engr and your point "time resolution is crap" is incorrect. its all in how the computer engineering group
chooses to develope under windows. i'm no huge fan of windows.
in fact i hope linux will dominate one day...but i have to be fair to MS.
what has lead you to this conclusion i have no idea. very sophisticated real time instrumentation is being done every day by very sophisticated hi tech companies using win.. if its crap, in a particular application its because
the programmer "tekkies" did not develope the application correctly.
in fact if you want.. windows will let you build a complete real time OS using win as nothing more than a shell with resolutions far finer than one millisecond. actually down to ONE TICK. its impossible to get finer resolution than that in time dependent applications. from what ive heard developers of music multitrack applications in practice build their own mini real time OS that operates using win as a shell.
in summary if the time resolution is not working properly blame the programmer rather than MS. i suggest respectfully you also read up on the architecture of the new and 64 and the low latency for audio its achieving.
i posted a link awhile back. if a user is experiencing problems with time dependent applications like multitracking in windows....there are normally two reasons. either his machine is not set up properly or the third party sound card drivers arent working as they should.
on my own PC i get no problems..of the nature your talking about.peace.

 

[Aristo]

Ok, don't want to make this a big thing so this is my last reply.
From the msdn library site:

"In order to meet the stringent latency requirements of hard real-time systems, it is necessary to augment the capabilities of Windows XP. This white paper examines Venturcom's RTX™, which provides a real-time subsystem running with Windows XP."


"A common characteristic of these environments is that they often require hard real-time system behavior.

Can Windows XP fulfill this need? The answer is, not as delivered."


"Why Is Stock Windows XP Not a Real-time System?

Microsoft Windows XP has been designed as a general-purpose operating system, suitable for use both as an interactive system on the desktop and as a server system on a network [Solomon 98]. The shortcomings of Windows XP in real-time applications have been thoroughly researched [Ramamritham 98] [Timmerman & Monfret 96]:
Too few thread priorities.
Opaque and non-deterministic scheduling decisions.
Priority inversion, particularly in interrupt processing.

While faster processors do dramatically increase processing throughput and average response times and thus may lead one to speculate that the system may become real-time, they can not make a non-deterministic system deterministic or even always improve worst-case response times. So newer hardware platforms will not make Windows XP itself real-time."

The URL is:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnxpembed/html/hardrealtime.asp

It's actually a very interesting article and worth a read for general knowledge on the subject for those interested.

You are no doubt correct that most embedded devices of this type probably work on windows shell but reading some other things I think it's been modified to be real-time since most embedded systems need it, at least to some extent.

Saying that you obviously get results so it doesn't really matter does it?

 

[manning1]

i dont know who wrote this stuff aristo. but just look at some back posts from teacher and others running (use the forum search) all sorts of tracks IN REAL TIME WHILE RECORDING NEW ONES plus all sorts of plug ins on an amd 64. i mean...a plain jane sempron from amd will do 40 tracks.
some people running dual amd opterons are reporting 100 to 200 tracks.
i have friends getting 40 tracks out of an old amd duron.
as i said it depends on how the application is written by the teks, and how well low latency techniques are employed in both the multitrack application and by the soundcard manufacturer. the whole idea behind windows(MS) WDM driver standard now implemented by sound card manufacturers was to bypass the latency inherent in the old windows kernel.

 

[Aristo]

some people running dual amd opterons are reporting 100 to 200 tracks.

Wow! That's quite a lot of tracks - could possibly be some time before I bust that kind of number!!

Looks like PC is the future anyway, how many tracks can you record/playback at once with a PC system? I noticed that there are those rack systems (like the 1010) that plug to a PCI card and expand (I presume by buying a new rack piece and PCI card) to record/play many tracks at once. Am I getting the right idea here or is it a case of just a few tracks at a time?

 

[MichaelM]

Yes you can use multiple sound cards and breakout boxes to get more simultaneous in/outs. I use a C Port, 8 in, 8 out simultaneously. I can record 8 tracks at a time, play back as many tracks at a time as my computer will handle, with each one routed into one of the sound card's outputs and into my mixer. The C Port is supposed to be sample accurately linked with upto 4 cards so thats 32 in, 32 out simultaneously if the computer will handle it. I'm just using the C Port as an example because it's what I use.

 

[manning1]

aristo. if you want to try what i use sometime (on a powerfull pc)...
http://www.pgmusic.com/powertracks.htm
and just watch the video. it will give you a good idea of what can be done on a modern powerfull pc with the type of multi input michael m has.
if you dont have a mixer , you could try a yamaha mg mixer.
if anyone ever offers you an old soundcraft folio mixer for peanuts - grab it.

 

[Aristo]

Thanks guys, appreciate your replies, it's good to find genuinely helpful people like this.

Watched the video, looks pretty flexible (although I'm not sure what to expect exactly). It sure has more features than my tape recorder - and it costs less too! If I already had a PC... But I will have to save for that.

Unfortunately I already have a mixer, I say unfortunately since it's a UB2442 and they seem to get slated here - although I did notice that someone had a pretty good mix posted that had a 2442 in the chain so maybe not all bad.

It will be a while before I upgrade though unless a real bargain comes along, or this one breaks out of warrenty. Interestingly the reason I got the 2442 instead of the similar mg from Yamaha was for the group outs of which there are 4. Now, having used it a bit I realise that 2 group outs are completely fine, and actually better if they are 4 busses set up as stereo-pairs on one fader. Gimmicks eh.

Anyway, it looks as though my choices are to either buy a digital recorder for 5-600 or wait with my tape for a bit and save for a good PC, sound-card and software. So my question is - will I (ignoring my lack of experience here) be able to record and mix better on a combination of PC and sound-card or on a 5-600 pound digital HD recorder or is it much the same? The reason I ask is that I don't want to spend on a computer system if I won't get much more for it since it will essentially be a dedicated system for me. It also seems to me that the sound-card will be cheaper than the dedicated system, i.e. not much better in the adc department (obviously more bits on a dedicated system so it will be more for similar adc's).

What are peoples' experiences about that?

 

[manning1]

aristo. i will admit my bias is pc here. more flexible imho. where i live amd sempron systems that will do 40 tracks easy are 350 dollars !! ie..dirt cheap. remember one thing.
using the software i showed you, you can record 40 tracks then mix down to stereo , and reimport to two tracks in a fresh session and record 38 more tracks. and so on. frankly i rarely do more than 32 tracks.
as you have a mixer all you would need is a cheap pc like a sempron or amd athlon , mics (of course !) and a good DELTA sound card. delta sound cards start around 100 bucks.
as to whether you should get a standalone - thats up to you.
but you should read the fostex section of this bbs where someone is complaining about the cost of replacing a button on a standalone.
this is why i dont like standalones - ive been caught like this in the past.
whereas with a pc parts are cheap. if you get a pc - get 512 ram MINIMUM
and two fast 7200 rpm hard drives. preferably 8 mb caches are better. peace.
PS - on the subject of whether the pc WILL SOUND BETTER. this purely depends on how good the sound card is and how much money your willing to spend on it. some users using the same software as i am use lynx convertors. very high end AND EXPENSIVE. but a lot of folks with small budgets like delta.

 

[Aristo]

Thanks for your patience here Manning1.

I'm actually starting to get pulled the PC route now, I was thinking about the fact that a cheap PC can handle many tracks and that the improvements would mainly be made on the sound-card side, which is just one component. If I get a standalone I will end up replacing the whole thing to upgrade.

Difficult choice and one I don't want to rush into.

Another question if I may, how long ago did you get your PC and when do would you expect to replace it to continue using the kind of audio s/w you curently use? I wouldn't want to be buying a new one every couple of years to keep up with the software is all. Or is it safe to say that with the available features on current software I could call it a dedidcated bit of kit until the hardware falls over?

 

[manning1]

aristo. re...how long before upgrading a pc. actually - you bring up a good point, and its causing a problem for some hi tech companies. heres the problem. the pc TODAY is getting so good that there is becoming less URGENCY to upgrade. for example - somebody today that gets an amd sempron, athlon, or 64 - and particularly the latter , there wont be as much impetus to upgrade. because the pc that does 40 to 100 tracks today will continue to do so in 5 years time if the user looks after it.
so - what i'm trying to say is we have reached a PLATEAU in computer technology. where there wont be as much impetus to upgrade.
most of my friends now are telling me the athlon level machine is plenty enough. its normally only the people who need huge numbers of plug ins on tracks that will need to upgrade say to anything more powerfull than a 64.
for me personally a 64 is overkill as i only do 32 tracks. and dont use a lot of plug ins. as i said - if you start off with a powerfull machine like an athlon,
lets say with fast hard drives you get 48 tracks before it starts "puffing out",
but you want more. no problem. just mix down the 48 tracks to stereo.
start a new session - import the mix to a track....then add 47 more tracks. thus giving you 96 tracks total. mind you i have doubts why anyone would need 96 tracks. but some seem to.
i think your key point should be to think whats the max number of tracks you will need in a song. EVER. give me that figure and i'll suggest a pc config.peace. also bear in mind if your recording lots of midi tracks and few audio tracks you wont need as powerfull (or costly) a pc.