In previous posts, a number of members stated they preferred using a hard disk recorder (Yamaha, Zoom, Korg, etc) compared to software based recording on a computer.

It seems that some of the newer audio interfaces (Tascam US 122) work very well and eliminate much of the frustration reported with earlier attempts at recording with a computer.

If someone wants to start recording (mostly keyboard and a vocal track, what do you recomend - hard disk recorder or computer based systems?

Jim

dedicated recording studio use a computer. With a computer you get more tools, more power and more professional recording. But with that, more cost, more maintance, and more learning.

With a dedicated hardware, you will gain portability, ease of use and others.

I personally, recommend computer recording. If portability is desired, a laptop can be used.

Hello:

Each has it's good and bad sides....editing is very easy in the PC's, aldo you have to strugle a little making averything work in order, make sure you have at least 512 Megs of RAM, a fast processor like a P4 or Athlon, Durons and Celerons are NOT recomended for Audio recording, also, you need a large HDD that runs at 7200 RPM, that is in the PC, now your Midi/audio interface, like the U122, or if you check also the edirols, there are a lot of models/features.

The software, from Sonar, Cubase, Pro tools, etc....that will be your preference in user interface and budget....I use Sonar with my P4 at 2 gigs, 512 RAM, M-audio Quattro,etc.

The stand alone digital recorders are easy to record but when you get to editing is another theme, consider that everthing has a learning curve, so make sure that where wherever you buy your software/recorder, make sure you get product support, also depends if you are high tech oriented, push button happy, etc..
I hope this help you, best wishes and good luck.

------------------
mdorantes

I vote for a hard disk recorder .

AW16G , BR1180 , .... Plug and play vs. Install and Learn . Upgrade , install etc...

Dano

------------------
keyboardcity@yahoo.com
www.keyboardcity.net
1-866-348-8876

A big drawback for progect studios and PC recorders is the noise generated from the fan in the tower. Hard disks spinning also can be picked up by mics.
I use hard disk dedicated units to avoid these issues because my entire strudio is in one room. I no longer have the flexibility of a separate envirnment for acoustic recording with sensitive mics.

Hard disk is whisper silent, and can be placed and transported anywhere. You can download to a pc later if you need more sophisticated editing, but most of the MTRs are very complete.

I use both and as mentioned, ease of use, hard disc hands down. For editing capabilities, more tracks and wider latitude pc. The coolest thing about pc recording is that to get the latest and greatest upgrades are generally under $300.00 (or free) to replace the h/d recorder as newer and cooler features come out can cost 10x's that much.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Gotta vote with the Hard Disk too

If you do go computer based , I would start off not spending alot of money .
Cubasis 4.0 is a good value at $99.00 . Getting a good sound card is very important .Tascam or Edirol , 1/4 inputs and outputs w midi ports can be had for $180.00 .

Dano

The Tascam US 122 works well. I had been a fan of M Audios cards and they are good sounding, but their drivers are a nightmare and always caused me grief.

There are a few different softwares you should look at.

Sonar, Power Tracks Adobe Audition (formerly cool edit it does not record midi though.) Imyself am not a huge fan of Cubase, but others seem to like it well enough.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Terry,

There are two cubase versions of the world: the VST version and the SX version. They are very much different and people are strongly divided about it. SX is the newer one and with the latest version of SX2, it is now winning the hearts of people. The only problem is that it requires a high end computer.

Jim,

I prefer Harddisk-recorder.
UD is very right about the noise of PC/MAC based systems.
Dan01 has a good point too : Plug and Play for dedicated Harddisk-recorders. (Computers sometimes behave as 'plug and pRay' equipment.

I used to have a Roland VS880, then switched to VS1880 (with built in noisy fan)... made a jump to Digi001 (Protools) and finally ended at a Yamaha AW16G (no noisy fan or HDD)

On my PC I have Cubase SX...great software but plugins require lots of CPU power and money while an AW16G has everything in it !!
(dynamics, EQ's, DSP's real faders and buttons)
I must admit, since XP the PC's run very reliable, but still I record multitracks on AW16G.
Mastering is done on PC with Soundforge.

Roel

Hi Terry & Roel & all: I too have been seriously considering purchasing a hard disk recorder (like the Yamaha's AW16G or Tascam recorder) to add to my setup, but a telephone sales Rep at Zzounds.com warned me I won't be able to easily transfer individual HD recorder tracks to my PC for editing in Cakewalk Sonar, which I already own. He said I would first must 'mix down' all the individual tracks to 2 (stereo) tracks. He said I need to decide between: recording on a hard disk recorder standalone unit, or recording using computer software, and that's its NOT recommended to combine the 2 recording types. He strongly recommended that I stick with Sonar and if I wanted to record outside the studio, to purchase a laptop instead. I'm a bit suprised he told me this because he just lost a potential commission in selling me a HD recorder. Was this guy giving me mis-information? - Scott

Scott,
I love my AW4416, been using it for probably 2-3 years since they first came out. Certainly much more push record and go than Sonar (I have that too) is, without hassles.

About what the rep told you:
It depends on how one defines "easily." I would agree to get seperate tracks from the AW into Sonar for editing purposes is not just push and record.

If on the other hand you want to wind up with a pair of stereo tracks in Sonar for mastering then it is that easy. You do not have to mix it down first, you can mix it realtime into Sonar and leave them all as seperate tracks on the AW.

The AW burns to disc pretty slow. You can though burn seperate tracks to disc, then import them into Sonar. I'm not sure that would be much of an advantage though unless you want to cut and paste, or have access to more plugin effects for seperate tracks.

You're limited on the AW to 2 effects per channel, such as reverb and chorus or distortion or any one of several that are on board, unless you buy an optional board at about $1000.00 was the last price I heard and can then do 8 per channel.

The one advantage that Sonar has of course is being able to record midi, which the AW cannot.

You do not have to decide between one or the other. With my latest cd, I am going back and forth between the two.

Don't know who it is that recommends you cannot mix the two recording types that's nonsense.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-22-2003).]

Hey Scott ....hay?, ( how are you ?) get it .
You finish recording 8 tracks .....
Play Track 1 from hard disk recorder into Track 1 of Sonar ?
You may have to do each track seperately and take a little more time , but it could be done this way ........

Here is my humble opinion about this:

If the portable recorders are to be used eventually to transfer work to PC for final editing-what is really needed for professional result, it would be nice if they could provide the capability to write to external firewire harddrives so that these harddrives are detached from the recorders and attached directly to the PC. Then the file transfer will make sense.

In fact, if I can find such a recorder, it will absolutely make lot of sense of portability. So they will be used in live settings to capture the live recording in multiple tracks. Then the tracks are easily tranferred to the PC by simply disconnecting the firewire harddrive and connecting to the PC and BOOM you are ready.

But to transfer each track one by one and to force it to go to D/A conversion then back to A/D and to pass through the whole gain structure, seems to be pointless and defies the purpose of portability and ease of use.

Harddisk recorders are created in the first place to allow some users to avoid the PC altogether. It does make sense for those who do no care about the advantages that the PC gives them and they truly want to avoid the hassle of building, learning, configuring and maintaining and paying for a professional DAW.

Hi All,

Modern Harddisk-recorders all are equiped with digital in/outs (optical and/or coaxial)
So there is no need to pass DA- and AD converters.

Since (harddisk)recorders and midi-sequencer software exist it is very easy to get them 'in sync' together with the help of midi-cables and the MTC (midi-time-code), SMPTE or MMC (Midi machine code).
All studio's used these features from the mid-eighties.

Each track of the AW16G can be saved on CD (WAV-file) Importing them on PC can be done in a split second.

Scott :
I do not understand at all what the salesman told you. (He is wrong in my opinion)

What I often did :
Record all music-tracks (midi) on PC.
Connect (harddisk)recorder and set 'synchronisation' to ON.
Record 'raw' midi-tracks on the recorder (only 2 track stereo) and then switch off PC.
Do all audio-recordings in the recorder and when done reconnect the PC-sequencer and midi-equipment. (erase 'raw' tracks on recorder)

From now on I'm able to create the total mixdown..... with computer and recorder working TOGETHER !

The final mixdown can be recorded on PC through the digital input. (e.g. in Soundforge running simultaniously with Cubase or Cakewalk)

Hi Terry. I'm really interested to hear how you utilized both the 'TascamUS122' and 'Sonar' in your latest CD. At what step(s) in your recording project did you utilize each of these, and what was the advantage (if any) of going back and forth.

Roel: Thanks for your correcting (what I had expected) the sales rep's totally inaccurate statement. Your explanation makes more sense than his. I guess my non-purchase from him has become his loss (of a sales commission).

I'm attracted to the reported button pushing ease of a HD disk recorder, but I've also heard that hard disk recorders involve a rather steep learning time curve as well, and that their small LCD screen (compared to a desktop PC screen monitor) makes navigation a bit cumbersome. Is this really true? If I do get a hard disk recorder I'm probably most inclined to go with the Yamaha AW16G, especially cuz you decided on that model yourself. Curious what other brand/models are comparable to the AW16G as well as what other advantages hard disk recorders may offer other than the fan issue? Thanks. - Scott

Scott,
"Hi Terry. I'm really interested to hear how you utilized both the 'TascamUS122' and 'Sonar' in your latest CD. At what step(s) in your recording project did you utilize each of these, and what was the advantage (if any) of going back and forth."

The Tascam is just the interface to get into the pc with audio and midi. I used both the AW 4416 and my laptop software for this cd, as follows.

I think audio is more flawlessly (or at least hasslelessly) recorded on the hard disc AW4416, because it is a dedicated unit that does not have all the other things going on that my laptop does. So on some of my cuts I recorded things like the Stick on the h/d first transferred it to the laptop to sync it up with drum tracks I put together in Sonar or Adobe Audition (I'm using both at the moment.) I started this cd out on the AW and about half way through decided I wanted to get back to making the laptop sequencing work and bought the US 122 to make it happen. I was using the M Audio Quattro and while the sound was great M Audios drivers leave a lot to be desired.

The laptop offers the flexibility of being able to see the wavs better cut and paste, record and edit loops to put the tracks together as well as having so many more tracks available to record on and as I mentioned before midi.

The other thing I did with the laptop was take advantage of the mastering and the more available effects, that the AW lacks.

About a couple of your other Q's to Roel. I actually think pc software has a steeper learning curve than my AW had. I think the other h/d recorder you should look at is the Akai 24. It has a larger screen with wav editing capabilities like a pc and it also has a hookup for a pc monitor to get it all on the big screen. It also has a 60g hard drive where my AW has a 12 (it may be larger now though.) I'm only sort of considering going down to look at one and maybe trading my AW in, although I know and like the AW very much.

The one major difference I notice for me that I do not like about pc recording is that I do not work as quickly with it as I do my AW. I spend too much time tweaking stuff just because I can in Sonar. With the AW I push record and go, if it's wrong I just rerecord it, which takes a lot less time then fooling with editing in the software.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-22-2003).]

I've read each and every thread with great interest, and most of what I've read seems to point toward a dedicated, external recording device, one that is very expensive and still must be edited with a computer.

What I would really like to see/hear is some songs A/B'd using both techniques, songs using the same keyboard, same vocal processor, same everything--except one would be recorded with an external, digital recorder, while the other would be recorded directly into the PC using either Cakewalk, Sonar, Sound Forge, GoldWave or any other PC based recording program. No editing, just straight recording--the exact same way that the song would be recorded on tape or a digital recorder. This would be the true test of which is best.

My gut feeling is that without editing, both will be about equal, but I won't know this until I hear a couple MP3's posted by those who have both recording systems available and post the A/B recordings. Then, and only then, will my aging ears be able to tell if there is truely a difference in the unedited versions.

I no longer own a digital recorder, so I'm out of this one for anything other than posting songs put together on my PC. I'm working on a CD now of all Italian songs and hope to have it complete sometime early this coming week. I'll post them on my web site when they're ready.

Cheers,

Gary

Editing can certainly be done on a HD unit. It just is more menu intensive. I just finished my first album for a client done entirely on the Roland VSR880. No computer edits ..... if it needed fixing - I re did the take. There are still a few bugs that need fixin', but I'm out of time. The album needs to be delivered this Wednesday, so I'm going to live with the imperfections.

True. However, that does not eliminate the problem entirely.

1) One has to have a DAW with the correct digital I/O.

2) Even if one has the above, still one has to tranfer the tracks one by one. Unless you one can digitally transfer 8 tracks at the same time. Transferring stereo mix of tracks is not acceptable.

It seems to me it is both cheaper and easier to do it with a laptop.

Sk, Not really totally true here. From my AW I can burn the tracks as wav to a cd and load them into laptop in one shot. They do not need to be recorded track after track.

It really isn't any cheaper to do it on pc or lap. If one starts from scratch, then it will be more expensive to buy lap and software than one can get high quality h/d units for.

To make it as painless as possible with pc based recording to, the closer one can get to amking it a dedicated unit for music only the better off they are.
Terry


------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html



[This message has been edited by trtjazz (edited 11-23-2003).]

Gary,
Once the sun comes up here, I will record a more direct comparison with the two methods, same short sequence and post them. I will let you all know when it is done so you can have a listen.

Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Scott,
IMO if you plan to continue doing the type of work you are doing and from what I know of it....you like to set it all up in the Tyros, then one shot stereo tracks, I think you will find a dedicated hard disc recorder much more suited and far less hassle to deal with.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Very interesting topic!

What I do (and have been doing for over a year and a half) is record directly into a Korg D1600 HD multitrack recorder (approx. $1400 USD now) after I get everything recorded (two synths plus vocals) I can then add effects (both insert for each track and master for the whole thing) and then bounce to two track stereo. After that, I burn to a CDRW and transport that to my laptop as a wave file where I use Sound Forge 6 and Wavelab 4 plus a number of DirectX plugins to edit/master each song and then burn them to CD using EZ CD Creator. I personally prefer to do the mixing on the D1600 because I like to use real faders instead of virtual faders on a computer screen. The only "live" mic work I do is the vocals and I use a cardiod condenser tube mic (SP TB-1 which I love and recommend; $300 USD)so I could use Sonar but I find it to be too much head hassle. With the D1600 it's simply push record and go, period; no pain, no strain.

The new Korg HD recorders all use USB connectors on the back (no more SCSI) and have a 2 gig partition on the HD that the computer can read directly, so you can transfer wave files directly between the recorder and computer. The new units also come with a 40 gig HD and can take a larger one, up to at least 80 gig.

The only reason I see for me to ever be interested in Sonar is to record midi so that I can either fix mistakes or can change instruments to see which I like better in any given song. Or, possibly, just to learn how for learning's sake.

Tom

------------------
Bigger is not always better

For anyone interested in the results of a direct sound comparison between the two methods, have a look at the A/B comparison thread I put up.
Terry

------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

Terry,

If they can be burn to a cd, each track individually, maybe then this is a good solution.

Imperfections can be a good thing. Make it too perfect and it can sound clinical or mechanical. There are imperections that obviously you should fix, but some imperfections just add character to the the music and should be left alone.

See, I told you my songs have some redeeming qualities to them. They abound with imperfections, albeit - they're probably the kind that should obviously be fixed though. Ha, Ha, LOL Practice! Practice! Practice! I'm workin' on it. Three years and counting... Keyboards, don't ya' just love em'..

Best regards,
Mike

As one of my other posts indicates, I'm zooming in (sorry) on to purchasing a Zoom MRS 802.

You can get a USB expansion card for about 70-100 pounds which allows 2 way comms between the PC and the 802; I assume the 802 will appear as a removable hard drive device on the PC (I think the other zoom hard disc recorders also accept the USB expansion card)(There are two available, the UIB 001 and UIB002; the latter is faster but otherwise identical so far as I can tell. I'm not sure whether this means the UIB 002 is USB 2 or not, however).

Also, Zoom provide an "Audio File Manager" with the USB board which converts the Zoom internal format to and from "wav" files. If this is anything like as easy as it looks, using the PC as an editor for "complicated" stuff looks very simple (at least in terms of data transfer).

Hopefully I can report back on the Zoom shortly. The USB interface will be a "sometime in the new year" item, I think.

Unless you have a Professional recording clientel, my vote is for a laptop[Sound Forge and/or Acid Pro...not Sonar]..Even on a Pro level there is merit in software..Flexability the biggie..If you are hard disk recording, most of your edits and fine tunning are resolved on a PC..The lone exception, a Top of the line Roland 24XX...For the average performer the laptop records well even with a slower disk drive than a desktop..I have been recording on my new laptop with great results, even compared to my hard disk recorder[Boss]..Even my old CTX laptop with the Digigram VX Pocket card records well enough to make the backing tracks for our band...It is just as fast as the Hard Disk recording , maybe faster if you need edits...The problem most of you run into is you are using the wrong software,get away from Cakewalk..As usual this is my descenting vote and opinion..

The Roland series of hard disk recorders are a poor example of what a true "professional" disk recorder is. The Roland VS and VSR Series use way too many functions to be able to setup, edit, and record. In addition to being too multi-menu driven they sound quite thin. Unfortunately most computer based DAW"s and cheaper hard disk based DAW's use poor converters, cheap filtering, and sound like poop.

I've been fortunate enough to own and use the best digital recorders available and I can say without hesitation the best sounding units are the Fairlight DAW's, IZ Radar, Sonic Studio, and Sadie. The downside of course is none of these systems are cheap.

Even computer based systems like Pro Tools HD and Nuendo lack the ease of use, sound quality, and speed of stand alone based HD systems like the Fairlight.




[This message has been edited by Ensnareyou (edited 12-01-2003).]

SK,
Not sure I get what you mean here. No matter what anyone uses eventually it has to be mixed down to stereo tracks to be burned to cd.

In the meantime a h/d unit can have as many seperate tracks as are available depending on the unit.
Terry



------------------
jam on,
Terry http://imjazzed.homestead.com/Index.html

I personally own a Roland VS1680 16 track 24 bit Stand alone DAW.. Let me tell you sir,
I would not speak of this awsome machine like you said.. Well, youre entitled to your opinion, but your response, seemed general.

With all due respect, in no way do I think the VS sounded thin.. WOW no way !!! As a matter of fact, you might have used one with out any effects cards installed...
I personally own the one with both effects cards installed, which provide a total of 8 mono effects or four stereo effects processors..!!
And the thing is so simple to use !! Simple as Plug your guitar, mic, etc, use the software patch bay, tell the VS what channel to record to, set it and Forget it!
Well, not really !! But almost as easy..

I made a cd personally for my brother in law totally made on the VS and now im working on the second one. Well, I had a friend who frequently records at PRO studios and I asked him to hear my cd. Well, I asked him, how much do you think this guy had to pay to record this cd, well, he said, no less than 3 grand !!!
WOW, I told him I had done the entire thing on my VS 1680 in my Bedroom !!!

No way !! was his response. Well, as you can see, I have heard so many people put down certain records and what have you, but the bottom line, is the ears of the engineer.. the mixes made, the time to mic things right, and the talent to do the final master.

Well, I love my Roland VST, I think the Mastering tools included in the Expanded version of the OS, are just so superb !!!
I master out via DIgital output dithering to 16 bits to my Marantz stand alone cd burner at 1x speed !! The sound..Ooooh so warm and thick !!!

Oh, I forgot to mention that the pres do sock !!
BUt im using an Art DPS Pre for vocals and acoustics... Going digital out to VS digital in !!
Please dont misunderstand me, Im not saying that the VS is the only Best thing to record with, but its a rather fine piece of gear when used right....

Oh man, you dont have to spend so much money to get the best sound !!

This is my humble opinion..

Peace,

Musikman



------------------

Have you guys seen/used the new Yamaha firewire module (Yamaha 01X)? http://www.yamahasynth.com/pro/01x/zoom.html
Also the Tascam FW-1884 http://www.tascam.com/product_info.php?pid=269&nav=computer_recording

Maged