Tweak's Guide to Multi-Track Recorders

[admin]

Tweak's Guide to Multi-Track Recorders
can be read here:

http://studio-central.com/multi_track_recorders.htm


Excerpt:

The question is how are you going to record your audio for your projects. The solutions all fall into the following categories:
1. You get a computer, audio and midi interfaces and record your audio directly to its hard disk in a computer sequencer
2. You get a stand alone multi track recorder/mixer and record all your tracks on it
3. You get a modular multi-track recorder and a digital mixer and work that way.
4. You take the advanced approach and use both a multi-track recorder and a computer audio sequencer and find ways to incorporate them both together, either through MIDI Time Code synchronization or through a digital file transfer system like an ADAT light pipe or Tascam's TDIF or Roland's R-BUS.
The main thing to sort out first is what do you want your studio to become? For some of us, that is simple. You might just be a guitarist/songwriter wanting to lay down some tracks and vocals that you can tweak down to a cd. In that case an onboard cd burner is handy and so are onboard effects, so you don't have anything else to buy, except maybe a microphone

[cazzywayne]

Isn' t that the million dollar question. My personal goal is to use my recorders for myself and try to remix some old tapes and record some new parts and see how they fit in the final mix. Figure out how I can integrate pcs into the fold to enhance what I already have. By the way. I am loving this sight and am quickly getting addicted. The possibilities are mind boggiling and the gear that some people have is truly outrageous. I don't know what half of it is and I am drooling anyway. Thanks for the articles for the newbies and all the excellent inserts regarding hardware and software.

[Tweak]

You are quite welcome. Enjoy!

[phaze2face]

By the way. I am loving this sight and am quickly getting addicted. The possibilities are mind boggiling and the gear that some people have is truly outrageous. I don't know what half of it is and I am drooling anyway. Thanks for the articles for the newbies and all the excellent inserts regarding hardware and software.

haha..im feelin that...
i like this site too for the fact this is the only place i know where yall actually try to TEACH people instead of callin some1 stupid as im sure weve all seen a million times on other sites...

big ups


~respek

[CWhasp]

Greetings All !! Im a Newbie to this forum. Im thinking about building a home studio around the Roland VS2400CD. Im a Guitarist/Songwriter, and have had enough of just going to a friends home studio and playing a lead. I want to create songs,record all the instruments by myself, including the drum track, and vocals too. Im wondering if the 2400 would be a good platform to start off my writing/recording era. Will I need a drum sample source? Is the 2400 kind to mind ? Ive played nearly 40yrs, so I have the patience of learning a new level of something Ive loved to do nearly all my life. Play music. Thanks !!!

[Tweak]

I don't think the VS2400 has the onboard drums like the newer Roland does. It's late though. It will record at the 9600 sample rate but then gets reduced to 8 tracks.

http://www.zzounds.com/a--3745/item--ROLVS2400CD

The smaller footprint VS2000CD has the drum machine, 6 less tracks and only records at 44.1, but is $800 less

http://www.zzounds.com/a--3745/item--ROLVS2000CD

The 2400 looks more professional, but the 2000 is no slouch, and i like that you can connect a computer monitor to it.

[CWhasp]

Thanks Tweek !! I read an article today that said that the PC route is the way to go. Then there is the question of a mixer, or doing that the "software" way. Seems that there are so many options out there, that getting the VS2400CD was the "all inclusive" direction to go. BUT, Id be restricted as to operating system and goodies I could add later. Could I add a DM5 to my 2400 based setup, and get the drums taken care of? Would a PC based home studio be more "friendly" to me in the future, and to my limited knowledge of the Audio Recording world? Im very Puter literate, and very eager to dive into the World of digital Recording. I really appreciate your time and words of wisdom. Knowledge is Everything! The Roland 2400 looked like a great unit, but now Ive got cold feet, and leaning toward the PC recording arena. Thanks for all the great articles here, they really do help me alot !!

[Tweak]

If you are going to do extensive work with MIDI a computer will be easier. Also if you want to use major plugin packages and do home mastering a PC makes it all a bit easier. Multi track recorders are for people who don't want to deal with computers, recording gigs and jams, basic song writing with instruments and mics. You can always record midi devices as audio, but midi editing is another thing. Nothing can beat a computer sequencer for that.

[CWhasp]

Hey Tweak, what would you charge for a complete quote on a 24ch Home Recording Studio ?? I believe that a list coming for you, a well-seasoned studio tweak-head, is well worth paying attention to! (well worth the price of admission). This would be a PC based, and you include what you feel is necessary for a quality sound, to end product (being a good mix on a CD). Im very curious to see what you would come up with. If you would entertain such an idea keep in mind I play guitar, some bass, little drums, and no keys. But, I would like to "somehow" learn to use all of the above and include them in the creative process. I dont have drums or a keyboard. For you to say "this is a nice little home set-up" and under $10,000.00, would definitely get the attention of this "Rock" musician ! Thanks Tweak, and if this is going over your "line", please disregard. I just had to ask....

Once again, Thanks for your time!

[Tweak]

See your Private mail in about 2 mins.

[citrite]

Multi track recorders are for people who don't want to deal with computers, recording gigs and jams, basic song writing with instruments and mics.

Tweak,

I disagree...if you don't mind I'd like to add my two cents here. I'm quite the computer geek--let's see writing BASIC applications as a teen to run on the Commodore 64, work professionally as a Network Engineer in the field, etc. and yet I prefer to work with my Roland VS-890 over using computer-based sequencing applications! I think that computer-based sequencing is a wonderful thing if you're into sequencing but I'm not sold on the PC for live applications which is 95% of what I do. I've tried going down the sequencing road and it just isn't me as a "Rock" musician and it might not be for others as well.

Not only do I play guitar, but I can lay down the bass and some keys, plus I started playing drums 4 years ago using a Roland TD-5 electronic drum set. I've been producing recordings off of the 890 since 2000 and I'm getting ready to upgrade to either the VS2400CD or the VS2480CD. You can get VS2480s off of Ebay for about $2500! That is a steal.

[Tweak]

>I disagree...if you don't mind I'd like to add my two cents here. I'm quite the computer geek--

Don't mind at all thanks for the input.

[CWhasp]

Lots of good stuff going on here !!! All "positive" !!
I like that Alot !! Im new at having the studio bug thingy, but I appreciate all aspects and opinions !! Im going to be creating songs "track by track". Its how Im doing it now, at a friends studio, and I believe that its a very effect way, for me. But that is what Ill be doing "mostly" with the studio. It will be my own creative tool. But in the "live" situation, that might not be the way to go. I have nothing against computers too, and Im looking forward to all the kewl software that is available for audio applications. But I understand that there is nothing like plugging in the "real deal" effect in-line so to speak. Im very comfortable with both ideas. Thanks for your "point of view" citrite .... I remember those 64k days myself !!! But Im just a user, not a programmer.
Tweak is being very helpful to me, and Ive read over all the material of the equipment that was recommended, and it all looks and reads "awesome" !
Thanks Tweak .... I was contemplating trying the VS2400CD, but for what I want to do, and the possibilites for the future software that "may" come-out, I think the computer angle was best "for me". I too do some bass, alittle drums, but no keys. Im going to see what happens ... hahahaha... Thanks Guys ! Keep it up !

[Michael]

If you are going to do extensive work with MIDI a computer will be easier. Also if you want to use major plugin packages and do home mastering a PC makes it all a bit easier. Multi track recorders are for people who don't want to deal with computers, recording gigs and jams, basic song writing with instruments and mics. You can always record midi devices as audio, but midi editing is another thing. Nothing can beat a computer sequencer for that.

[Leesong]

If you are going to do extensive work with MIDI a computer will be easier. Also if you want to use major plugin packages and do home mastering a PC makes it all a bit easier. Multi track recorders are for people who don't want to deal with computers, recording gigs and jams, basic song writing with instruments and mics. You can always record midi devices as audio, but midi editing is another thing. Nothing can beat a computer sequencer for that.

Thanks, Tweak. You just answered my question. I was trying to decide whether to upgrade my old Mac or go with a stand-alone DAW. Since I so some editing of my midi sequences, the computer is defintiely the way to go.
Lee

[JayceeAZ]

Greetings, all. Forum newbie here, but I have been stumbling around now for a few days and decided to get signed up and jump in here. Historically, I have been a keyboardist, songwriter, and singer for over 25 years. I've written hundreds pieces in that time, and since the mid 80's, I had been recording on a trooper of a unit (Vestax mr100fx - R.I.P, poor lil drive motor). One day, I noticed the Roland VS-880, and bought one. My life has never been the same!

Soon after, I upgraded to the VS-1880 and gave the 880 to a partner. I must have spent 1/2 a year tinkering and tweaking settings and still not learning the full scope of the 1880. I have never gotten to the phase of mastering a CD on the unit, because thus far, I have not been satisfied with the recordings (nothing whatsoever wrong with the unit - it's my perfectionist obsessions!)

So, if there is a question in all this, it's likely pretty basic. We all know 99.999% of the synths on the market have their own fancy stereo FX built-in. L/R outputs to 2 channels in on the recorder, right? Ok. Now the recorder also comes with it's own brand of FX you can apply... and this is where mayhem and nightly head-banging-on-concrete-walls began. Yes, I can NOT FX any of the recorded synth stuff. Or, I could use the modelings and other settings to make them phatter or punchier... in and out, in and out goes my mind, and next thing you know, 5 years later, I still have no CD (that and real-life work took over and knocked me from my studio life).

I have 1 digital synth (Alesis QS8) and 5 Analog jobbies from the DX7 and DW8000 to a few Roland JV and XV modules. The reason for this blabbering is, is it RIGHT to just run L/R out to 2 ch. in on the recorder, and use the natural synth FX and sound?? Or, do you "fluff" it later with something else to make it more alive?

This is my quandry. I have no idea. I know what sounds good, but something is still missing. Things were pretty simple when track bouncing on Cassette recorders inherently sounded crappy - but now, it's so pristine, ugh. Can't take it. Need perfection.

Any tips or get-a-clues? Telling me to stop ANALyzing is ok, too. That does seem to be my biggest problem; I am my worst critic.

TIA, and thanks for giving us a place to ramble.
John

[Tweak]

Well, I can tell you what I do, everyone's milage varies.

Synth FX often destroy mixes, and I have learned to prefer the clean un-effected sound on most of my tracks with some exceptions. I like the tritons's compressor. But for the most part, I avoid synth reverbs like the plague. Shoot for a clean sound, effects are best when barely heard.

[JayceeAZ]

Thank you, Tweak. That is precisely the advice I was looking for. Glad you were able to gleen my actual dilemma out of my ramblines at 4am. Hah.

Reverb and such are pretty each to remove, but as you know with some synth patches, the FX drive the final sound - so in some cases I may not be able to remove "too much" (like patches that have sharp attack/decay, then flange or delay to give it a percussive sound). Or Roland's electric guitar models. For a keyboardist, I'm a pretty good guitarist! ~ducks the tomatoes~

Thanks again. I'm hoping to record something soon, I'll be sure to try this out and bring the results back here.

[thegoodone]

Just wondering...how many of you use this awesome machine and what are your views about it.

Anybody produced a CD with it? Is USB connectivity all that it is cracked up to be?

Any videos or DVD's out on this unit?

Enquiring minds want to know!!

Thanks!

Greg

[kicklighter]

I have a roland 1680 that I like , I 'm looking to buy another (machine) to add on. Which of the top recorders would be the best user freindly and quality recorder to buy. I'm looking at the roland 2480 but was wondering if someone would recomend something else(akai, korg etc.) . It has to be easy to use and top quality sound and can connect to computer and video should I need it. Any suggestions would be appreciated

[Rmjr]

very informative tweak. I have a Fostex G24S and I want to start hard disk recording as well. I would like to get buy a sound card for my PC and use my 24 track analogue mixer. Which sound card would be approprate for recording 24 tracks simul. into my PC. I get lot of bands for that. Also what PC specs are ideal for such an amount of recording? will appreciate feedback. Thanks