Yamaha AW1600s synced

D

Dorian_Gray

New member
Hi and hello to all. I was wondering if it’s possible to link/sync 2 Yamaha AW1600s together? You’d get 16 inputs for recording and 32 tracks if it’s possible. Anyone tried it or know if it’s possible?
I was going to get a AW2400 to replace my 1600 when I saw one but keep seeing the 1600s for sale. I am well and truly old school and had a go at DAWs but quickly gave up and went back to what I knew(old and lazy!) so though I know this would be a better way of working, I’m stuck in my old technology world! Thanks
 
Dorian_Gray said:
Hi and hello to all. I was wondering if it’s possible to link/sync 2 Yamaha AW1600s together? You’d get 16 inputs for recording and 32 tracks if it’s possible. Anyone tried it or know if it’s possible?
I was going to get a AW2400 to replace my 1600 when I saw one but keep seeing the 1600s for sale. I am well and truly old school and had a go at DAWs but quickly gave up and went back to what I knew(old and lazy!) so though I know this would be a better way of working, I’m stuck in my old technology world! Thanks
Click to expand...
No the AW1600s aren’t capable of syncing together - no word clock or way of mastering one over the other - why not use a DAW - which you don’t have to worry about track counts or snyc control or anything?
 
Even if you could sync two units, how would you combine the two mixes into a single track?

As much as I like the AW1600, I found that trying to mix a track was much more difficult that in Reaper. There were a few tracks on my AW1600. I transferred them to my computer via USB (so much easier than using CD-RWs on the AW16G!!!) and used AWExtract to convert them to WAV files that I could then mix.

FWIW, you CAN sync up two Zoom R-24s via USB. One unit slaves off of the other, so if you can find two R-24, you can do 16 channels at a time and 48 total tracks. You would still need some way to mix them all down to a final mix, which would be to mix them down on a computer.
 
Bail on the old technology--you'll quickly find that it's obsolete for a reason. No meanness is meant here. It's just one limitation after another in that realm, and if you're even half-serious about your music, you owe it to yourself to do it.
 
I should move on. I had cubase in the 90s and couldn’t even get the metronome to work so gave up on it and the phobia persisted! I’m getting to the stage now where I can’t be bothered to learn anything new. Lazy I know. I’ll keep my eyes peeled for an AW2400. They don’t seem to make digital recorders like they used to. Probably not worth their while anymore
 
Not true, Tascam makes the DP24 and DP32SD. Both are full portastudios. The DP24SD has 8 mic inputs, and costs ~$500 which is probably much less than a used AW2400. The nice thing is that they don't use hard drives, so you're not limited to the 40 or 60GB limit. Using 32GB SD cards that cost about $8 means you can essentially have unlimited storage space. A Zoom R24 does the same, and I still have one for portable recording. I really liked the workflow of the AW series, but while it seemed like a lot of storage when I first got one, it eventually was a limiting factor.

I don't know how old you are. I'm 71 and had no issue learning Reaper a few years back. In fact, I find it very logical. Plus there are a TON of videos online for just about any function you desire.
 
TimOD said:
Bail on the old technology--you'll quickly find that it's obsolete for a reason. No meanness is meant here. It's just one limitation after another in that realm, and if you're even half-serious about your music, you owe it to yourself to do it.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly disagree with the latter two statements. The old digital machines may be limited in relation to the current bells and whistles DAW, but they are far from limited. I'd compare them to electric bikes and a non-electric one {ie, an actual bike 😃}. Sure, you have to use pedal power to get up a hill and there's no let-up if you're tired {other than getting off and resting awhile !} but that is part of the point of a bike - it's part exercise tool and it's not meant to have the easy electric non-pedalling lazy get-out clause. So it's not really limited, it's just not easy. And the same with the old digital DAWs. Their limitations are only limitations for those who can't or choose not to work within their perceived limitations. If you can happily, then they're not limited at all.

And the statement about being half serious about one's music, well, that's plainly ridiculous. History alone bears that out. The overwhelming majority of contributors to these pages since the site's inception were inspired to make music by the music that was recorded and released between 1950 and 1990. That takes into account a huge number of albums, EPs and singles, most of which were recorded on equipment today regarded as primitive. Yet did we all sit around for 40+ years lamenting the lousy quality of what we had ? No, of course not. We loved what we heard {for the most part}. The reality is that from reel-to-reel 4-track tape all the way to near-unlimited track DAW, there are a plethora of means and ways of recording and mixing great songs that will sound excellent to those who choose to listen to them. Equipment doesn't become obsolete because it's no good, neither does it do so because people no longer want it. Things become obsolete because man moves on, comes up with new things and people, as per the choices available to them, latch onto the new and then there comes a point where it is no longer financially viable to keep producing what is then deemed as older tech. And the real casualty is choice. If you're half serious about your music, you'll utilize whichever medium and equipment gets you to where you want it to be.
 
What I said about being half-serious was meant to apply to a novice getting into recording today. Why fight with technology that is, charitably, past its prime? It doesn't make sense to be messing around with technology that is in fact obsolete when technology is available relatively cheaply to use. I owned Tascam cassette recorders back in the old days; I wasn't "sitting around" waiting for some technological breakthrough to drop in my lap. The Portastudio was the breakthrough. It got me a little closer to the desire to own a multitrack recorder like a pro would use. But to use a Portastudio now would be folly, and severely limiting. It was, in fact, not very good to begin with, quality-wise and sound-wise, even though there are still people using those things, which makes no sense to me when something easier to use, better-sounding, very versatile, and possibly cheaper is available.
The people who recorded those records back in the period you mention were mostly using the best technology available at the time, certainly. It was also often extraordinarily expensive. Many of those old studios actually threw away old compressors and other such gear when newer digital and modern stuff came out. Which seems crazy, but those things weren't cheap to maintain. ( I wish I would have been in the position to garbage-pick some of that garbage.) And of course now it's cool to own those old devices, which of course are still terrific-sounding, but my God, it's a boutique thing, an affectation almost because of the price to maintain them, or to simply get them.
 
Fair enough. It didn't come across that you were referring only to novices, it seemed like a reply to Dorian who had already said he was old school.
That said, I think we're still in that period where the old technology {I guess, depending on what it is} can still be utilized for those who choose to do so, novice or not. But that period won't be around for much longer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top