mutitrack recorders

[BulbousMoses]

I use a Tascam DP 008. It has pretty good capabilities for what it is. If you really know what you're doing, it can produce a good quality demo. What I really love about it is the portability..it's about the size of an average hard cover book and that's hard to duplicate in a DAW (even a laptop)

 

[longfinger]

A good thing about MTR's is that they are designed for sound recording from the get go. Computers are general purpose, you have an OS, then an application program, then you need special hard ware to get the sound in and out of the computer. Sometimes things don't work as well as on a stand alone single purpose unit. Going back to my now ancient experience on a 4 track cassette unit, whenever I used my 424mkiii I remember thinking how well everything was designed to work together. It was limited by being only a 4 track cassette recorder and by the quality of the components, but the conception behind it all was top notch in regards to workflow. When using early versions of Garageband, I kept thinking how things are not working ideally, how things should be better etc.

DAW's are definitely more money. The computer, interface that can support multiple simultaneous records, software. But prices have come down, and CPU/RAM/storage power has increased... in $ the numbers are much lower than before.

Sometimes the power of editing in a DAW can distract people from performing excellent takes. "Can we splice the two together?" "Can we use flex-time (auto-tune) to fix the bad performance?" etc. "Here let me go online and check out Talkbass.. just for a bit..."

Sound is about hearing, MTR have the physical unit, but not much to look at. DAWs have big pretty screens to look at and sometimes we end up recording and editing by sight instead of by ear.

 

[stjohn1299]

It's a lot more cash upfront for me for the DAW setup, which right now is the biggest obstacle. I could, over a longer period, get what I wanted, but that also puts me off from recording that much longer. Alot of gear I would like to have for either is probably going to be the same regardless. Mic Pre's, amp model units for guitar/bass, microphones, monitors, etc. But on the DAW end, I'd need a computer, an interface, the software, etc....the MTR would just be the unit itself. And longfinger you make a great point about the possiblity of losing the musicality of the performance with a DAW, by using the various tools to correct a take, rather than playing a take correctly.

 

[Venom of God]

DAWs have big pretty screens to look at and sometimes we end up recording and editing by sight instead of by ear.

I had a teacher who used to tell us to turn our monitors off and just listen through various stages of a mix. I probably should do that more.

EDIT::And by monitors I mean screens, not near fields

 

[WalWarrior]

Yamaha AW4416 is a cool unit!

 

[Ubersheist]

I understand where you're coming from. For me, there's too many pieces in a daw to keep updated. I might change my mind though one day. I plan on using preamps and modellers for vocals, guitar, and bass, and either a drum machine or real drummer using a sub mixer for drums. If I want to record the band live, ill send an out from our mixer to an Mtr. I might add keys later, but its mostly for the purpose of my current band to write our own material and get it down.

With the exception of ProTools, the DAWs are getting easier to use, stabler and really don't require that many updates. I also hear that alot of the stability issues that Protools 8 and earlier had were rectified with Protools 9, but I'd still stay away from that beast and go with Sonar or Logic or Cubase.

I also heard that Sonar is compatible with one of Roland's multitrack recorders for use as a control surface. I couldn't find it with a quick internet search, but that might be the best of both worlds for you.

If you're looking for just tossing out ideas, I think the Roland series of multitrack recorders are pretty good. However, as soon as you want to go and record something a bit more serious with higher sound quality, Garageband, which comes standard with every Mac you buy, is hands down way more versatile and powerful then pretty much any multitrack recorder I am familiar with.

 

[Ubersheist]

Heck... contact any studio.. I'm sure they'd give you a swinging deal on one...

Iv'e had more issues with MTR units than DAW.... Iv'e had more content lost by MTR

yeah, I bet those studios are unloading them like crazy. Also, Craigslist tends to have a lot of them up these days.

The only MTR I ever had personally was a Roland VS-840. It worked beautifully, although had a rare freeze once in a long while. I really don't think that the machine was good for much other then basic demos, but it was super, super clean sounding. I've never had any mechanical issues with any mtr that I've encountered. DAWs, on the other hand...

I've also been in studios with other MTRs, and they never had issues, either. However, there's other issues that arise with MTRs that you don't get with DAWs. For example, this weekend, we recorded at a studio with some older MTRs. (I wasn't a fan of this, and have some serious doubts about how the final results will sound, but I was a hired gun and had no say in the studio.)

We did several takes of a song as essentially a live band, chose the best take, and then started doing overdubs and punch-ins. It was really easy not to choose the right take, so I ended up doing punch-ins on the wrong take, and the guitarist did overdubs on a different take. As such, I've got to go back and try to match that tone I was using and/or completely redo the tracks a month from now after the band leader gets back in town.

There were other issues like this - navigation issues. Stuff like this happens more often with MTRs then with DAWs. However, MTRs (in my experience) rarely freeze up or crash, while DAWs can and do have catastrophic crashes on occassion, especially ProTools 8 and earlier.

[/2 cents]

 

[BulbousMoses]

One of the dangers of the "cut and paste" methodology of DAW's and associated software is the loss of real playing skill and technique. I'm sure (if I had the money) I could record some songs and through the use of plugins/software/pitch correction etc I could make my recordings sound much better than I really am. And while artists have been employing various methods throughout the years to make themselves sound better on a recording, the foundation for everything is the ability to play/sing properly in the first place. I think that an MTR forces you to play and sing properly, moreso than a DAW/software setup where things can be "repaired" with a few mouse clicks. If all you ever want to do is be a recording artist, then fine but if you plan to perform live, you'd better have your chops going or it'll be ugly..

 

[stjohn1299]

Agreed. What is leaning me to mtr's is the fact that you are what you are with them. This is to record my band with on one hand, and as a basic song demo on the other when we start writing our own stuff. Its too easy to add a ton of vocal effects, double guitar parts without recording both, and generally making everything pristine in a daw. With an mtr, you have to work to get a good take. That's my humble opinion, btw

 

[Ubersheist]

One of the dangers of the "cut and paste" methodology of DAW's and associated software is the loss of real playing skill and technique. I'm sure (if I had the money) I could record some songs and through the use of plugins/software/pitch correction etc I could make my recordings sound much better than I really am. And while artists have been employing various methods throughout the years to make themselves sound better on a recording, the foundation for everything is the ability to play/sing properly in the first place. I think that an MTR forces you to play and sing properly, moreso than a DAW/software setup where things can be "repaired" with a few mouse clicks. If all you ever want to do is be a recording artist, then fine but if you plan to perform live, you'd better have your chops going or it'll be ugly..

This is sort of true, but not really for us mere mortals. A DAW can make the next pop singer starlet sound great, even though she's never seen the stage in her 17 years of life. She's going to suck live. However, the guys in the big budget studio are going to be working on that one vocal track for a long, long, long time to get it to sound good. It's not as easy as just tossing on some Autotune.

For us non-big budget studio mere mortals, yes, we'll still cut and paste, but you can do that on any MTR out there, too, with almost as much ease. THere's just not as much other control, like time stretching, automating various parameters of things other then just volume, etc.

A lousy take on a DAW can turn into something usable or at least decent with some work, but a lousy take on an MTR usually can't be made to sound any better. The example I gave in an earlier post typifies this. The 3-4 noticable flubs that I had on the one take couldn't be fixed with an MTR, so I've got to go back to the studio at a later day. If we used a DAW, I'll bet that the track could have been edited within an hour or two so that it would sound pretty good. Instead, I've got to go back, which will take all day.

That said, at home, I have no desire to spend all day fixing tracks. A good take is still absolutely paramount to just about anything else when recording with a DAW, MTR, or any other recording platform.

For us mere mortals, a DAW at home can get you really close to making a truely professional sounding recording, where it's much harder to do with an MTR. For me, that's the bottom line, as I am trying to get nearly professional sounding recordings. If you're not, then an MTR may be tons easier for you.

 

[BulbousMoses]

For us mere mortals, a DAW at home can get you really close to making a truely professional sounding recording, where it's much harder to do with an MTR. For me, that's the bottom line, as I am trying to get nearly professional sounding recordings. If you're not, then an MTR may be tons easier for you.

I think there is a place for both in the world of recording. The portability factor of many MTR's is something that most DAWs can't match. But for making a polished product, yes, I agree that it's easier to do using a DAW. Then again, it depends on the sound you're looking for. Nebraska (Bruce Springsteen) was recorded on a cassette 4 track and has a sparse, haunting sound as a result. This was done deliberately, of course...a case of using a lower tech option where much better equipment was available. I've always had an interest in "getting the most" from the recoding equipment I use..often pushing it past it's limits to see how far I can get with it.

 

[maxiegrant]

I just have to jump in and say I just did the opposite for a number of reasons. For one, modular setups mean more flexibility. I used to use a VF-16 to record. I did in fact record both of my current band's CD's with it. it is not a bad unit.

But it is built around IDE hard drives and those are obsolete now. If the drive in my Fostex dies, the whole unit is dead. Nobody makes IDE drives anymore, meaning that I have a tape recorder with no tape, effectively.

We also used Reaper to mix our last CD. I went through some immense pain trying to figure out how to get the tracks off the Fostex until I realized I could export them to a Jaz drive (yes, I still have one) and then onto my PC. That required me to install a SCSI interface from the 1990's on my Windows 7 PC. YUCK. I'm a professional IT guy and I still found the whole experience monstrously aggravating.

Finally, it's a VF-16. That is as many simulataneous tracks as it can ever have. The processors on PC's are getting faster, multi-cored, and better chipset instructions all the time. With my current setup, I have 8 simultaneous inputs, but I can chain 8 more to it if I want, and 8 after that if I want. And in Reaper, I can run as many simultaneous tracks as my PC's processor can handle. Some of the songs on my last CD were 45-track monsters, and I could never have managed that with the Fostex, even with the kind of clever reduction mix tricks I used to use to make my 4-track into a 10-track. It would have just been too complicated to mix.

Finally, try using a 4-inch LCD to record an entire CD. Then use a 22" widescreen monitor (or two of them, even!). You will NEVER want to go back.

The portability factor of many MTR's is something that most DAWs can't match.

I'm not so sure of that. I can pack my Presonus into my laptop bag, and that is still less bother to move around than my VF-16. The part of the VF-16 that is replaced by my DAW setup is physically smaller in its new format.

 

[fingerbun]

Re getting distracted by all the bells and whistles on a DAW. Yes it it a danger. But would you cut half someone's fingers off and only give them five frets for fear they might overplay? My take is you think about how you use the tools, and the best result always comes from a good performance.

Re cost - I'm still of the view that a DAW is cheaper. If I had to do it on a budget, I'd buy a second hand desktop cheap, and an interface module. In Australia I could certainly do that for less than an MTR. I would expect the interface module to come with some sort of software I can use. An older machine won't be as powerful as newer, but it will still do a lot. Google "Old computer DAW" and see what you find. Part of the key is tuning the PC ... turning off unnecessary stuff that consumes resources, never connecting to the internet, and so on.

Portability - GarageBand runs on an iPad, and I have a simple four track recorder on my iPod touch

 

[Slowgypsy]

I've owned/used both the Korg and the Tascam. And currently I own/use the MTR that I am most impressed with... Zoom R24. Do take a look at it.

 

[JOME77]

I started off with the Boss BR600 multi-track recorder and eventually added Reason/Record 5.0 and the M-Audio fast Track Pro PC I/F.
I guess it really depends on just how far you intend to go with it. I never planned to record more than 2 instruments at a time and most of the time I play all of the tracks. I use it primarily to capture original song idea's and create bass orchestra type songs.

The great thing about the Boss BR600 is that it has a built in Dr. Rhythm (drum machine) and you can create some very nice drum parts fairly easily. It's a great starter tool because it can be purchased online for $250-300 and you have basically everything you need to get going.

I still use the Boss BR600 for a lot of projects because I prefer the sound of guitars/basses using it (verses the Reason/Record package) but I'm hoping that when I upgrade to the new Reason 6.0 and Balance (I/F device) next month the compatibility and level issues that I've had (from time to time) will be corrected.

Good luck with your choices!

 

[alec]

I have a Zoom MRS4 which is a really handy little scratchpad of an MTR. But it uses Smart Media cards which aren't made anymore, so they're expensive, and they hold bugger all data.

So I got a Fostex MR8HD. Four simultaneous inputs and a hard drive. I should have done my homework. I assumed the editing features of the Zoom would be standard on the Fostex but it wasn't the case. Bummer.

 

[BulbousMoses]

I still maintain that there is a place for both types of recording. If that were not the case and MTR's were just sitting on store shelves gathering dust, they'd dissappear pretty quicky, don't you think? As for GarageBand running on an iPad...that's good but the iPad2 starts at $519.00 in my neck of the woods and I paid $260.00 for my Tascam out the door. And I hope you're not suggesting that an iPad is a DAW, because it most certainly is not. It's a multifunction tablet that has fairly limited audio recording capability. See where I'm going here...it's all well and good that you can record on an iPad but there are some drawbacks to that and hoops to jump through (as there are with MTR's, by the way) But if you are planning to produce a commercial grade CD, then I agree that a DAW is the better of the 2 choices. Having said that, it's not impossible to produce a polished product on a multi track recorder.

 

[stflbn]

The Zoom R16, R24's are very effective and usable, and affordable.

 

[stjohn1299]

my cost on DAWs would be more than most because, if I went that route, I would add a mixer as well....call me old fashioned, but I don't want to mix by mouse. As for an interface, I would get the PCI-based Delta 10/10, so I could have 8 ins and 8 outs to the mixer. If we ever became serious about writing and recording our own material, I would add another 10/10 to give me 16/16....which is exactly enough to set everything up to record and leave it, and not have to constantly switch things in and out and reconfigure channel settings....so eventually, I see myself going the DAW route, because I'm not sure I can get to that point any better with an MTR. My problem now is deciding whether or not to start that build now, with the knowledge that a computer will have to be replaced 5-7 years down the road, along with all of it's software....

 

[BulbousMoses]

my cost on DAWs would be more than most because, if I went that route, I would add a mixer as well....call me old fashioned, but I don't want to mix by mouse. As for an interface, I would get the PCI-based Delta 10/10, so I could have 8 ins and 8 outs to the mixer. If we ever became serious about writing and recording our own material, I would add another 10/10 to give me 16/16....which is exactly enough to set everything up to record and leave it, and not have to constantly switch things in and out and reconfigure channel settings....so eventually, I see myself going the DAW route, because I'm not sure I can get to that point any better with an MTR. My problem now is deciding whether or not to start that build now, with the knowledge that a computer will have to be replaced 5-7 years down the road, along with all of it's software....

Just do your homework (it sounds like you have). DAW's are great but hard drives crash, data gets corrupted, software doesn't play well with other software, etc...there is no perfect system but once you make a full on commitiment to one way of doing things, it's tough (read: expensive) to reverse course. Good luck and hope you post some clips of your work in the future.