why is computer recording so popular?

  • Thread starter Thread starter trim
  • Start date Start date
T

trim

New member
is it easier or something?

more tracks to record with?


i just bought a digital 8 track recorder and am feeling like it's not the 'thing' to use now. or doesn't work as well or something :/

is that dumb?
 
Computer recording is NOT easier than using a standalone 8 track unit. It has a higher learning curve and can take some work to get it set up.

But computers offer expandability, flexibility, power, and higher track count. You can buy third party effects and virtual instruments and integrate them with your system. The advantages to a DAW make it very appealing, you can upgrade your system as time goes on. With a standalone unit, what you have is what you have and it doesn't change.

On the plus side, my friend made some pretty good sounding stuff on his BR8, and he was able to get it going in a very short time. With computers, you're sometimes chasing bugs and glitches for weeks.
 
it's not nessecarily (can't spell) easier, but I have been doing it for about two years now, and this is what i think:

1. Much more versatile
The amount of software available is incomprehensible. Computers are able to do a lot of things that tape or linear digital recording just couldn't do. An obvious example would be pitch shifting. With tape, pitch shifting would mean a change in speed, whilst computers can compensate through the marvels of digital technology. To get a basic idea of what you can do, look at the plug ins available for ProTools and CoolEdit.

2. Quicker
Rather than cutting up a piece of tape, making a couple of copies and then sticking them back together again, computers can do this in a matter of seconds. Whilst it is possible with tape (although to be very precise is incredibly hard and would take eons to do) i don't think it is with digital recorders where you don't actually have a hard copy of what you have recorded to look at (i mean, you can cut up a piece of tape and move it about the reel, but you can't cut up a bit of an MD and move it about).

3. More room for creativity
Remember that KERCHUNK! during Creep by Radiohead? that was a mistake kept in because it sounded good. When twiddling faders and knobs on a plug in you can go wrong and it can sound great. I have spent hours just messing with a single fader on some white noise. Also, if you get into programming or know how to code, you can make your own plugins to do things that you couldn't previously do.


hope this makes some sense.
 
That was the most awsome Kerchunk that I have ever heard. I was wondering how they did that.
 
Here's the sitch:...

People have an undying fascination and love affair with their computers. Computers are the "it" thing of modern times. Get used to it.

I'm analog, all the way, although [confession time] I do have two "token" digital machines in my vast [mostly analog] collection.

I have the Fostex FD-4 and the Tascam 564. I like the Tascam really well, because it has the awesome Tascam 12x2 mixer, and I like the Fostex a bit less. Fostex is always cheaper and less well built than Tascam, but it's functional.

I prefer the sound and simplicity of analog, overall.

I had the Tascam US-428 once, with all the best intentions of 'puter recording, but within a week, I was ready to thrust my fist through the ol' puter screen. BTW, I returned the US-428 for a full refund, and placed the money on the Tascam 424mkIII, 4-track cassette, instead, and have lived happily ever after!;)

That's just me, though, and analog enthusiasts are in the minority. All I can say is, that if you're into analog, just stick to your guns, and don't fall for any of that "digital-is-best" claptrap.

;)
 
a reel person: :)

ok cool.

it's good to have some light shed on what everyone prefers and why.
i'm new to all this so i haven't found my groove yet.

or something ;)


i see what you mean about the computer option.
but i could see how it would slowly become an endless race for better cards, software, tweakz etc. like you're playing an FPS and going for the most frags or something. lolz.
or it could be viewed as fun. to me it seems like a headache. plus my computer rather sux. if i had a lovely fast mac i might consider that avenue. but....

hey thx for the feedback. happy recording. i'm recording right now actually! good times :)
 
Well, I started computer recording and not standalone because it seemed like standalones were limited.
 
$$$. As long as you've already got a computer, for $300 or $400 wisely spent, you've got yourself a high quality digital recorder.
 
yeah they're definitely limited i guess, if you think about all the things you can continually add to your computer recording studio.
but i think too many options wouldn't be good for a newbie like me anyway right now ;)

i've got a fostex. MR-8.
it seemed like a good deal for the money.
not like anything has gone wrong (knock on wood). but it does appear to be the uber-n00b-cheapo-first-time-digital-recorder of choice, now that i'm more familiar with the home recording community. and i'm not sure if that's a good thing.

i wish maybe i had saved for the new yamaha AW16G or something more sophisticated. i'm recording my first album and i want it to sound as good as i can make it.
i'll just have to make do. after all, isn't it still what you do with what you've got?
 
FattMusiek said:
Well, I started computer recording and not standalone because it seemed like standalones were limited.
Click to expand...
Say what??? In exactly what way is one "limited" by a standalone?????????
 
haha.


c'mon how are they NOT limited? list your top 3 sassy-ass reasons ;)
 
So you got 8 tracks trim? Can you add more? That's the only sassy ass limit I can think of right now.
 
Standalones aren't limited anymore than 'puter systems. In both cases you can add as needed. And for the money, although I do not have as many channels......I do have a lot more patching and FX options and alternatives than many of the 'puter recordists seem to have......I also don't ever have latency problems. And I don't have to go looking for the EQ plug in......I just grab a handful of knobs. :D
Now before someone flames me for "dissing" 'puters.......I'm not doing that at all.......but the question was in what ways aren't stand-alones limited; and the only one I can really think of is number of channels.
 
thanks bob :)

dakota - you are right! i can't add more. *tears*
also that comment of mine was directed at lt. bob and blue bear, since they seemed so fired up about standalones not being limited, i just wanted to hear from them how they thought they weren't! :D
 
Well.........first off.....how do you prove a negative. If someone wants to tell me in what way standalones are limited.....then I can reply to that. But to simply ask for what ways they aren't limited is a question that there's really no answer for.
I can say they aren't limited in any way whatsoever.....which is true if you've got the right gear but I don't see that as useful info.
I see the 'puter recordists have problems with various limitations that require further software all the time. True.......all they have to do is buy the software.........but all I have to do is buy the hardware. What's the difference?

Secondly......I'm not fired up about anything.......I don't really give a crap.....it's all about the music that results. Nothing else matters at all to me..........and I've heard great stuff done on 4-trackers and garbage done on big rigs.
 
Lt. Bob said:
............it's all about the music that results. Nothing else matters at all to me..........and I've heard great stuff done on 4-trackers and garbage done on big rigs.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. :cool:

spin
 
FattMusiek said:
Well, I started computer recording and not standalone because it seemed like standalones were limited.
Click to expand...
Yet imho some of the best home recordings that I've heard on this board were done on standalones. Check DarthFaders threads to name just one.

I'm computer all the way because I was very familiar with computers when I started to get involved with homerecording but what I've seen is that people more or less abuse the possibilities their computers give them. Like >100 doubled vocal tracks... Throwing every plugin at the tracks that they have "and the cpu only hits 9%!!" (big deal)...

Having a powerful computer does NOT give you better mixes. It's the man who turns the knobs of an interface that HE is comfortable with.
 
I've just started PC recording (10 days ago).

I love computers and I love multi-track recording. Basically I've just combined the two, and I've already got all the mics, mixers, and other equiptment from analog recording. I'll I needed was a decent software program.

It is nice to have more than 8 tracks if I want them.

Oh, and I'm still using a SoundBlaster.
 
What I like about computer recording is ease of:

cut & paste

drag & drop

and most convenient, the "undo" option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top