why is computer recording so popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trim
  • Start date Start date
Blue Bear Sound said:
Say what??? In exactly what way is one "limited" by a standalone?????????
Click to expand...

Exactly! You are only limited by your level of knowledge of any particular recording format.
Analog/Digital, Daw's,standalones and p.c.s'. Great recordings can be achieved in ANY format. While p.c's may offer a wider array of options in the overall rec'd medium, it also has it's limitations
and that "unreliability factor" due to system crashing, increase need for ram to support the many plug-ins available, learning curves and various issues related to such.
It all boils down to one's preference; Apples or Oranges;Rum or Vodka cash or credit (I'm babbling ain't I?:p ). 1 format is no better or worse than the other.


However, if I may, ADAT's and Alesis HD24 RUUUUUUUUUUUULES!!!!:D ;) :D
 
trim,

Don't feel bad about buying the fostex. You will learn much more in a faster amount of time working with it than any newbie who starts on a computer. Why? Because you will learn how to work around your limitations. You will come up with creative solutions which is a large part of getting the sound you want.

Another great benefit is that you will learn to be happy with what you have. Once you get the sound you want out of the bare essentials, then when the time comes where you want to upgrade to using a computer you won't be one of these people who spend $$$ on extra software and plugins to get their tracks to sound good because you will know what it takes with just the fostex. At that point you will just get what you need, and the hassles of fixing bugs, tweaks, and upgrades will be at a minimum.

Cy
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Say what??? In exactly what way is one "limited" by a standalone?????????
Click to expand...

What I mean is, when I first started home recording, I thought "Computer - Endless plugins, software etc". I don't know much about standalones, but you're not going to be surfing websites with one of those, heh.
 
Re: Re: why is computer recording so popular?

regebro said:
Because people are masochists.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no shit. I've recorded 100x more music since I stopped using a DAW. With an HDR/Mixer setup I can record instead of troubleshooting pops and clicks.
 
the best of both worlds:


ADAT or HD standalone system interfaced with a DAW. this gives you stability, no latency, and the power of editing nonlinearly. i record to adat first, transfer tracks digitally into my daw. this takes a bit more time, but the tracks sound so much better when they are sample accuratly synced. most DAWer's have never experienced this if all they use is a computer to record. (ever wonder why your mixes are always muddy and sound flat?) anyway, another cool think is that i always have a backup of the tracks. without even having to make an effort to back them up. :)
 
thanks cyrokk.

regebro, what does 'fiat lux et facta est lux
' mean?
 
What you belive is light, is in fact light.

That's my guess.;)
 
trim said:
haha.
c'mon how are they NOT limited? list your top 3 sassy-ass reasons ;)
Click to expand...
Well... with standalones:

1) I'm not limited by track count (I add as many machines as I like to get the count I need.....)

2) I'm not limited by latency

3) I'm not limited by computer crashes

4) I'm not limited by s/w interface or poor design

5) I'm not limited by having to configure/start/reboot/reconfigure every time I want to change a setting

6) I'm not limited by HD space

...shall I continue????? :rolleyes:
 
Blue Bear Sound said:
Well... with standalones:

1) I'm not limited by track count (I add as many machines as I like to get the count I need.....)

2) I'm not limited by latency

3) I'm not limited by computer crashes

4) I'm not limited by s/w interface or poor design

5) I'm not limited by having to configure/start/reboot/reconfigure every time I want to change a setting

6) I'm not limited by HD space

...shall I continue????? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

May I kindly add portability, price and ACTUAL KNOBS,BUTTONS & SWITCHES you can actually touch as compared to freakin' around with some got-d@mn mouse!:p
 
Both arguments are convincing - still don't know which is best for one who knows NOTHING about computer recording (that would be me.)

Here's a question: If I were to sing an a capella vocal track into the MR8, and then sang the identical track into a moderately inexpensive computer system, would the quality of the sound be vastly different? Or - for those of you who think computer recording is highly superior -- is the computer system "better" in your opinion mainly because it offers more bells and whistles for the buck?
 
Laura C said:
Both arguments are convincing - still don't know which is best for one who knows NOTHING about computer recording (that would be me.)

Here's a question: If I were to sing an a capella vocal track into the MR8, and then sang the identical track into a moderately inexpensive computer system, would the quality of the sound be vastly different? Or - for those of you who think computer recording is highly superior -- is the computer system "better" in your opinion mainly because it offers more bells and whistles for the buck?
Click to expand...

Not as simple as that!

One must take into consideration the quality of the mic used, pre's, A/D converters and hard/soft ware multi-track medium and whatever outboard or plugin processor is being incorporated into the recording process.

It all boils down to a matter of preference!


U say TOMAA-TO, I say TOMOT-OE!!:p



That was stoopid, huh!!??:rolleyes:
 
Laura C said:
Both arguments are convincing - still don't know which is best for one who knows NOTHING about computer recording (that would be me.)

Here's a question: If I were to sing an a capella vocal track into the MR8, and then sang the identical track into a moderately inexpensive computer system, would the quality of the sound be vastly different? Or - for those of you who think computer recording is highly superior -- is the computer system "better" in your opinion mainly because it offers more bells and whistles for the buck?
Click to expand...

I think in the specific situation you described...the 'puter sound would be substantially better because I believe the MR-8 is a compressed format BUT!!!! that's a piece of equipment I have not personally used so I'd have to check to be sure.
But all of this stuff is pretty good as far as sound goes......I mean, very few of the current crop of recorders sound just plain bad so I still say it's what you do with it.
 
The MR-8 is 16/44.1K UNcompressed data.

8-tracks onto a memory flash card, with transportability of files to the 'puter through USB.

It's hard to say which would sound better, because a computer is an integral part of operating the MR-8. You'll constantly have to load and dump your files to the 'puter, over & over.;)
 
<<I think in the specific situation you described...the 'puter sound would be substantially better because I believe the MR-8 is a compressed format>>

Hmmm. That brings up other questions. Does compressing a digital file cause it to lose some of the clarity or quality? When you record on a computer are the files generally NOT compressed?

It was said that all things are not equal when comparing the quality of an a capella vocal snippet on an MR8 vs on a computer setup... true that. Sorry, I wasn't specific enough in my question (and still may be way off -- if so, please forgive!) How about this... we're making as many things as equal as we can: Same exact mic used. Let's just say it's dry -- no effects. And let's also say that we're exporting BOTH files to a something OTHER than both the MR8 and the computer we used to record. Assuming one knows what one is doing, will there be a significant difference in sound then?

Someone on this forum graciously offered some advice on what equipment I could consider when building a home studio with my computer, so let's use his suggestions as an example. Here's what you're recording the computer track with:
Software N-Tracks
Sound Card (M-Audio Audiophile)
Preamp (M-Audio DMP3 2 channels)
Microphone:
Shure sm57 (only because I have one)
(Studio Projects B1 or Marshall v67)

Thanks!
Laura C
 
trim said:
thanks cyrokk.

regebro, what does 'fiat lux et facta est lux
' mean?
Click to expand...

"Fiat lux is a luxury car, and that's a fact."

No? You didn't fall for that one? Or?
 
Laura C said:
Does compressing a digital file cause it to lose some of the clarity or quality?
Click to expand...
Yes... data compression schemes used by many budget recorders/portastudio units sacrifice *some* sound quality for disk space usage.


Laura C said:
When you record on a computer are the files generally NOT compressed?
Click to expand...
Right... unless the s/w allows the option, but typically, uncompressed audio data storage (WAVs) are the norm.
 
It boils down to what you want to do, what you want to spend, and where you want to do it.

I think most would agree that nothing beats the quality of a good 16-32 track standalone digital recorder. However good units are not cheap.

PCs are very capable and PC recording software is cheap. However most PCs are not portable and latency is an issue most of the time.

If you're trying to record a band with multiple inputs, then standalone is probably the only practical choice. If you are recording things one at a time, then many options exist.

The best combination for me was a Fostex MR8 and PowerTracks software on the PC. With this combo I have portabilty for recording at different places, but still can easily get 16 quality digital tracks in the result and use the PC for mix down.


Ed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top