Multitrack recorders still a thing?

[ofajen]

I have a Yamaha AW1600, which is a very clever digital studio in a box much like the Tascam and Roland units. However, it sits idle most of the time, and is pretty much only for remote recordings.

The rest of the time, I record and mix on my little Otari machines (1/2” 8-track and 1/4” 2-track), having divested myself of all the big 3M Mincom recorders that use to fill up space.

Small format analog machines force an old school process, where the recording is done with the mix in mind, decisions are made and you move on. I like that process, but it’s obviously not for everyone or for every recording task these days.

Otto

 

[ofajen]

Noise reduction is an issue with analog recording techniques.

Not if you don’t make it an issue. I haven’t used noise reduction since the 80s. Careful setting of levels is enough with the machines I use.

Otto

 

[Knavery]

Most importantly, sometimes getting away from a computer and having limits will speed up productivity and result with some good music

This is kind of my thought as well. I want an 8-track digital recorder when I sit down in the living room and want to slap something together. I think it'll get those wheels turning and I'll want to write more music.

 

[Slevage]

Not if you don’t make it an issue. I haven’t used noise reduction since the 80s. Careful setting of levels is enough with the machines I use.

Otto

Depends on what you intend to do with the final product.
My friends had 4 trac Vocoders in 1976 and later had 4 trac Tascams. We used the guys with noise reduction for our band demos to make them sound better than the competition. The club owners didn’t know why they sounded better, but we used it as part of our promo.

 

[bearfoot]

I had an older Tascam one years ago and am planning on buying a new one. I miss the simplicity and how it was more organic. We’ve been recording all our stuff on protools for years now and I’m over it. The number of options drags the process out so much that before we can finish recording one album I’m fed up with it and wanting to write another. Our last album cycle the guys didn’t want to break out the new songs until the album was out and they took their sweet time recording guitars and vocals in particular and by the time it was my turn to track bass I hadn’t played some of the songs on that album with the band in 6 months. There are some great studios in my area that keep the process rolling well but the problem with them is cost. Spending like 4 grand on a recording eats up an entire years worth of profits for us and prevents us from being able to do things like hire people to shoot music videos. Maybe the recordings are marginally better than using a multitrack but these days the sound quality of everything takes a hit anyways because everything is YouTube and other social media, streaming, and digital downloads all of which have Audio limitations.

another device to consider is the Behringer Xenyx UFX 1604. This is an analog mixer that will record in .wav all 16 tracks separately to hard disk (24 bit) or SD reader (16 bits). I picked one up used, and find it very useful for MTR band recording while also having a full, tactile interface. On that note, the faders are underwhelming.

 

[Wanker_Joe]

While I still love and use my Tascam DP-03, the thing that pisses me off is the fact that they removed MIDI sync capabilities. With the older ones, you could record all 8 tracks and sync to a MIDI keyboard workstation, without using any tracks. I could then mix the workstation output AND the multitrack to stereo on another recorder....
Ahhh... those were the days!

The removal of MIDI on the newer ones is the biggest reason why I haven't upgraded from my old multitrackers. Why can't they just make one with MIDI?!

 

[garp]

Small format analog machines force an old school process, where the recording is done with the mix in mind, decisions are made and you move on. I like that process, but it’s obviously not for everyone or for every recording task these days.

That's one of the major reasons I still use my standalone recorders – I feel my creativity is actually enhanced by knowing in advance that I don't have an infinite number of tracks with which to work.

 

[ofajen]

Depends on what you intend to do with the final product.
My friends had 4 trac Vocoders in 1976 and later had 4 trac Tascams. We used the guys with noise reduction for our band demos to make them sound better than the competition. The club owners didn’t know why they sounded better, but we used it as part of our promo.

I'm mainly talking about pro machines. Noise reduction wasn't really needed until they made the mistake of putting 24 tracks on 2" tape. The much narrower track width reduced the noise performance of each track and the increased buildup from more tracks made it an issue.

With careful level setting, even my 1/2" 8 track gets by with no need for noise reduction. It actually has the same track width as the 24 track machines, but obviously at most 8 tracks or 7 if I slave MIDI via SMPTE.

Noise reduction always produces artifacts by changing gain and manipulating the noise floor. It tries to create the psychoacoustic impression of lower noise floor while doing its best to hide the artifacts.

Personally, I found the Dolby variations on cassette useless and tolerated the dbx system on my Tascam 388 but was glad to be liberated from it when I was able to start using wide track machines.

Otto

 

[Slevage]

I'm mainly talking about pro machines. Noise reduction wasn't really needed until they made the mistake of putting 24 tracks on 2" tape. The much narrower track width reduced the noise performance of each track and the increased buildup from more tracks made it an issue.

With careful level setting, even my 1/2" 8 track gets by with no need for noise reduction. It actually has the same track width as the 24 track machines, but obviously at most 8 tracks or 7 if I slave MIDI via SMPTE.

Noise reduction always produces artifacts by changing gain and manipulating the noise floor. It tries to create the psychoacoustic impression of lower noise floor while doing its best to hide the artifacts.

Personally, I found the Dolby variations on cassette useless and tolerated the dbx system on my Tascam 388 but was glad to be liberated from it when I was able to start using wide track machines.

Otto

We didn’t have the $$$$

Now my hand held Tascam 4 trac yields better results than any old school 4 trac in our price range.

 

[higain617]

I still have my Fostex X18 Multitracker Cassette Recorder...

I started out on an X15. I'm a fan of old Fostex, and have an 812 mixer. Decent, transparent pre's considering the pittance I paid.

 

[DirkP]

I still use them.

Personal stuff I use a VS-2400CD, and all of my bands' recordings since around 2005 have been on a Boss BR-1600CD. Both units are still going strong after a great many years of use. Only problem is it's getting harder and harder to find CD-Rs (the 2400 doesn't have USB to grab the tracks the BR1600's USB is borderline useless).
If somebody put out more modern version of the VS series of multitrack recorders utilizing a modern way to export the tracks out I would buy it in a heartbeat.



Lol. I have exactly the same reasoning as to why I abhor opening up a computer screen when I get home from work. 8 hours a day in front of one is enough for me.

Same here!

 

[N. Kentucky Bass]

I've used multitrack recorders for years, esp for location recording where a laptop is too cumbersome. And after staring at a PC all day, last thing I want is to do it again via music! For MIDI, however, the laptop approach is much smoother, especially for using instrument and effects processing options. Both have their place.

 

[ofajen]

I've used multitrack recorders for years, esp for location recording where a laptop is too cumbersome. And after staring at a PC all day, last thing I want is to do it again via music! For MIDI, however, the laptop approach is much smoother, especially for using instrument and effects processing options. Both have their place.

I’m thinking I’m due for a modern MIDI program. It was a shame when Ziccarelli left Opcode, because Gibson bought them out and Opcode went away. They had the best stuff in the 90s. My old PowerBook can run the last version of Studio Vison Pro, but it’s getting pretty flaky. I have an old MacBook available, and I’m thinking of getting the limited version of Metro from Sagan Technology. I will need a USB MIDI interface that can stripe time code if I want to slave it to the Otari.

Otto

 

[Knavery]

Great, now I can't make my mind up between the Tascam DP-03SD and the Tascam DP-008EX. Anyone familiar with these two? Thanks.

 

[ofajen]

Great, now I can't make my mind up between the Tascam DP-03SD and the Tascam DP-008EX. Anyone familiar with these two? Thanks.

I'm no expert, but a quick glance shows a few differences on the outside but a fair amount of similarities.

Looks like the 03SD is bigger, has faders and runs on AC adapter. The 008EX is smaller, has rotary pots for volume and can run on batteries.

Otto

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

I use Logic at home for recording and am completely happy with that for the highest end projects I do in my music room. But I am sorely tempted to give the Zoom L12 a shot for live recording out in the world, especially at the university where I could use it to record small groups and get a fader on each instrument. I also remember the allure of the old Fostex and Tascam 4 tracks and how they seem to invite just going for it for fun.

 

[EastCoastThump]

“The wonderful thing about computers is all the stuff you can do with them; the horrible thing about computers is all the stuff you have to go through to perform what used to be a small task.”

One of the "wonderful things" a DAW can do is create new-session templates; so however you want to work with your various projects, you can open a new session from template that has the right kinds and number of tracks, just the plug-ins you want, etc.

IOW, if you know what you want, it's pretty easy to tailor a DAW to your preferred work flow.

 

[MattZilla]

I miss my dp-01 and my friend's big blue 6/8? track tascam. It was nice going from plug everything in, power up, straight to recording rather than mucking around waiting for windows to load.

I do love my daw though- once it's up and everything's connected. It's simple enough to hash out scratch track after scratch track. Cntrl+n, arm, cntrl+r, jam, spacebar, mute, repeat.

 

[Clark W]

I'm involved in a recording project and we're going to go with both, multi track recording using headphones, and then DAW / software for the final mix and mastering of all the individual tracks recorded on the multi track. Why?

Because the multi track can go to where we want to play and record. My desktop DAW setup can't. Well it could, but just breaking it down and hauling it and setting it all back up just isn't worth the trouble when we can use a multi track machine, record digitally, then I can take it home to my computer room and via software put it all together with no distractions as well as do any final tweeks to it I might need. Besides, who wants to drag around dual 32" display monitors, a full size desktop case, cables, and all the gear that goes with it? Not me.

Also doing it this way also takes computer crashes and freezes out of the recording equation. Never know when Windows might decide to bite ya in the butt.

Right now I'm currently down to these five models

TASCAM DP-24SD 24-track Digital Portastudio - $499

TASCAM DP-32SD 32-track Digital Portastudio - $599

Zoom LiveTrak L-12 12-channel Digital Mixer / Recorder - $599

Zoom R24 24-track Recorder / Interface / Controller with Loop Sampler - $499

Zoom R16 16-track SD Recorder / Interface / Controller - $399

After talking with someone here on TB and getting to listen to some of their work using the Zoom L12 for not only their recording, but final mastering as well, no DAW work whatsoever, plus the 5 programmable headphone outputs that board has, I'm really leaning towards it.

The TASCAM gear has a reputation of a steep learning curve but I can't really say, just what I have heard among people using them. The Zoom L12 from what I have heard is pretty straight forward, and non computer types such as the person who shared their recordings with me, are not having any problems picking up on how to work the thing.

Now I'am a computer geek, every graphics / video / audio workstation I have owned for the last 25 years all the way back to DOS and Win 3.1 days, I've built myself. I don't buy computers, I buy the parts and put them together. Still doesn't mean I want to use the computer for everything I do. And recording is something I would really like to do separate from and then finish off on the computer. And today's multi track recorders are a great way to do that.

 

[Roxbororob]

I'm involved in a recording project and we're going to go with both, multi track recording using headphones, and then DAW / software for the final mix and mastering of all the individual tracks recorded on the multi track. Why?

Because the multi track can go to where we want to play and record. My desktop DAW setup can't. Well it could, but just breaking it down and hauling it and setting it all back up just isn't worth the trouble when we can use a multi track machine, record digitally, then I can take it home to my computer room and via software put it all together with no distractions as well as do any final tweeks to it I might need. Besides, who wants to drag around dual 32" display monitors, a full size desktop case, cables, and all the gear that goes with it? Not me.

Also doing it this way also takes computer crashes and freezes out of the recording equation. Never know when Windows might decide to bite ya in the butt.

Right now I'm currently down to these five models

TASCAM DP-24SD 24-track Digital Portastudio - $499

TASCAM DP-32SD 32-track Digital Portastudio - $599

Zoom LiveTrak L-12 12-channel Digital Mixer / Recorder - $599

Zoom R24 24-track Recorder / Interface / Controller with Loop Sampler - $499

Zoom R16 16-track SD Recorder / Interface / Controller - $399

After talking with someone here on TB and getting to listen to some of their work using the Zoom L12 for not only their recording, but final mastering as well, no DAW work whatsoever, plus the 5 programmable headphone outputs that board has, I'm really leaning towards it.

The TASCAM gear has a reputation of a steep learning curve but I can't really say, just what I have heard among people using them. The Zoom L12 from what I have heard is pretty straight forward, and non computer types such as the person who shared their recordings with me, are not having any problems picking up on how to work the thing.

Now I'am a computer geek, every graphics / video / audio workstation I have owned for the last 25 years all the way back to DOS and Win 3.1 days, I've built myself. I don't buy computers, I buy the parts and put them together. Still doesn't mean I want to use the computer for everything I do. And recording is something I would really like to do separate from and then finish off on the computer. And today's multi track recorders are a great way to do that.

I have the L12 and love it. I also use it as a mixer when I have to run our sound from the stage (our own PA).
There is an L20 now that can do bluetooth remote control.

Edit:
I one band we use it for every practice, All IEM/Ampless, all recorded. We actually have two L12s linked up for 24 channels (one board for the entire acoustic drum kit).

Added crappy photo from corpo gig Saturday...