General Music Chat

Lately, I've been checking out some digital recorders. They look great, and the fact that you can burn a disc off of one of these or put them in your USB is a great idea to me.

I was looking at this Tascam package deal where you get a 24 track recorder,monitors, AKG Perception 220 mic, Sennheiser headphones, and some other goodies like cables and a boom stand...etc. All this for $1,350.00 for 5 payments of only $270 bucks!

My question is, how do these things sound? Can you really get a professional sound recording out of these, or are they just good for demos? If I'm going to buy something like this, I want it to sound like a quality studio recording(of course drum mics will be needed).

Please give me some input before I turn around and spend money on one of these.

I have friends who have always been impressed by Tascam quality, so I think this package would deliver the quality you would want. The only problem I see would be if you want to record a whole band at once. It only has 8 inputs, 4 XLR and 4 1/4". So it's only going to record 8 simultaneously.

My question is, how do these things sound? Can you really get a professional sound recording out of these, or are they just good for demos? If I'm going to buy something like this, I want it to sound like a quality studio recording(of course drum mics will be needed).

I have used the Roland VS880 for years:




The sound is good and you can get a professional recording from these hard disk recorders. It really comes down to learning how to set the right levels, mic placements and experience. I stopped using hard disk recorders and switched to recording softwares. This is because it is easier to do editing with a computer.

It sounds like a good deal Krul.

Akai DPS24 all the way

I highly recommend you read all of this first before you buy a Tascam.

http://home.earthlink.net/~rongonz/home_rec/home.html

RGMixProject: Thanks for that link. I'm going to keep this link for future reference. Thankfully I have a good Shure cartiod mic, but I'll need some more things too.

I have a book and a DVD all about home recording, so that's going to help a lot.

Iain:I'll definitely look into that Akai. I heard they're stuff is some of the best quality you can get.

Santos:Thanks for the confirmation bro! That's all I needed to hear. Now I need to start filling up the piggy bank to get it all.

Ratsass:I agree, Tascam quality is great. Back when you could get those little 4 track cassete recorders I got a Fostex and I didn't like it. I got jealous when my friend bought him a Tascam.

Yeah, I think 8 tracks is plenty enough for the drums eh? It's getting all the cymbals to sound clear that would be the trickiest part. That is unless you wanted to overdub the cymbals, but that's just too un-natural IMO.

If there's anything else you guys can add, I'm all ears(in this case eyes). Thanks for all your advice my brothers!

I did a bit of recording a while back with a 24 track I think was Tascam, when hooked to a computer (firewire I believe) it did a very nice job, with all the editing capability you might need. Don't remember what software the guy was using, Pro Tools I think, but it did a very nice job. Unfortunately some idiocy occurred and things ran amok and I never got copies of my tunes, both of which were unfinished.

As far as Tascam quality goes, I'm running an older Portastudio 414 through my computer with a standard everyday sound card, using the line out and no tape, all the songs on my profile except While We Cry were done with that setup, sound is pretty good for a bedroom project with a 30 year old Shure PE35L mic. I've been pretty impressed with it for a makeshift setup and the Tascam has been good.

I bought two in the past. But I sent them right back. One was a tascam. The problem being that they used a format incompatible with all the software on my PC. And the edit screen was so small on the Hdd recorders that it looked like a real pain to edit on it.

I went with a real nice outboard 8 track system like a MOTU. That way I could use the newest generation of software that is available for editing on a PC. And I like being able to use a 36" Flat screen HDTV for a monitor. Great for editing if you need it.

I use Sonar, Tracks, Cool Edit Pro, and a bunch of other tools. I really like PC recording far better than my stand alone Hdd recorders. With a Hdd recorder you have a couple of extra conversion steps that you can bypass with a PC setup.

They may be better now days, but you just don't have the capabilities you do with the PC systems.

But that was a personal choice. I don't know any one here that uses a Hdd recorder that does studio work. Most started out that way, but switched to PC recording because all you have to do to upgrade is get new software. With a standalone Hdd recorder, you have to try to sell it and then purchase a newer one to upgrade.

Unless they have advanced to upgradeable software for those units.

I have a Boss BR1180 that I purchased in 2003 it is a 10 track hard disk recorder. I bought it because it billed itself as the easiest Icon based recorder LOL! You see I was completely computer illiterate back then I couldn't even turn one on! Anyway the last 4 songs on my profile I recorded with it. They were song Ideas that I had and were My very first attempts at recording at home I have been in a lot of studios but someone else was always behind the equipment.

I used to own a Roland 1880, and the effects were fabulous.
copy & paste/editing took a while to get the hang of.
For some time now, I've been drooling over a 2480.

For a DAW, after having used two Rolands, a Fostex 16 track & reading up a bit on others, I'd totally go for a 2480: they can be had for what you've got.
But, you'd need the other gear after that so, maybe that's beyond yer budget.

good luk mate!
Rich

For a DAW, after having used two Rolands, a Fostex 16 track & reading up a bit on others, I'd totally go for a 2480: they can be had for what you've got.
But, you'd need the other gear after that so, maybe that's beyond yer budget.

The recorder I'm looking at is the Tascam 2488, do you know anything about that one?

I have Cool Edit Pro, so I was thinking if I got a solid recording, then I could always do some final touches by downloading the disc and converting to WAV files. But then I would have to eventually turn the Wav file into an MP3, and that doesen't jive with me. There's always some missing qualities that MP3's have. Hmmm...looks like I need to educate myself a little more.

I ask you this sir.

Do you need to do more than 2 tracks of simultaneous recording?
If not, just stick to computer based recording and if you have a laptop, tote it around when you need to go mobile in your projects. Just buy a card with a 24 bit 192Khz sampling rate.

I invested a LOT of money into live and recording equipment. Finally I though OK do I get a laptop or do I get a work station. Ultimately I went with the laptop due to the ease of use and the fact that when going mobile, a laptop is far more useful since it does more than just record and edit music.

The logic was simply that there are a lot of ways to record a song.
Some but few just hook up each musician to a dedicated track, everyone plays and they do the song as many times as it takes to get it tracked without anyone fudging up a take.
Not the preferred method by many engineers but even bands like Manson do it and they deal with a lot of samples and synth sounds.

The next is, everyone gets assigned a channel, they record the song and get a good take then their instrument is muted on a headphone monitor, they go into the studio in isolation and recut their instruments one at a time.
This is probably the most standard practice with major studios cutting albums with commercially endorsed bands.

The more common home studio computer based take is, everyone plays the song, a monitor take is recorded to a stereo track and then everyone listens to this take on the headphones when they go back in under isolation and recut their take to a dedicated track.

Since the last method is essentially just as good as what the industry does as a standard, it's only limitation is the number of tracks you can record at once on a computer when cutting a take to be used on monitor.

After weighing my options, I personally decided just to stick with the computer and to make cutting drums easier, invested a few hundred bucks in a digital 5 piece drum kit that uses real drums for samples and record stereo VIA 1/8 jack. Not many people want to cut an acoustic set to a single stereo channel, this completely resolved the issue....apart from not finding a drummer!

My only regret in this decisions is this-the laptop I picked out.
High end specs and I went with the 17 inch monitor dual core, 192 Khz 24 bit soundcard only to find that damn 17 inch monitor is a burden on the system and laptops with the same specs of a desktop, will run at about 1/3 the performance because everything is so scaled down.
Just the same, it does the job and the sound quality is awesome as is editing easier. I've talked to an awful lot of guys that use these workstations to record then still end up transferring everything to their PC for the editing process.
I've yet to fully produce a song to professional grade standards but again, the challenge of being a one man band trying to do insanely complex metal tracks is just too much for one musician.........

You gave me some things to really think about Deth.

Now, if I do install a better soundcard, shouldn't I get a Midi interface installed? I guess the whole line in recording isn't cutting it for me. There seems to be elements of clarity missing, and a lot of clipping on my guitar. If I take off too much distortion, then the sound tends to be weak. I have a Roland, but the ride and hi-hat just sound fake. I guess I'm just trying to get a better sound to draw in people to take me seriously enough to want to join me. But everyone wants the best ear candy.

I know I'm also looking way ahead here too. When I eventually find some people to play with, I think it would be great to be able to record everything without paying someone to do it and rushing to get it done. Recording eight tracks at one time would be good enough for a drummer. Twenty four tracks is all that a band needs for a quality recording. So yeah, I guess I'm really hungry to just step out, and get out of the room to the stage again.

Lately I've been listening to some of these bands on MySpace, and if they didn't have a good recording, they would sound like vomit. I guess it kinda gets on my nerves to hear all these bands just downstroking on the E string, while getting fans and even generating sales.

I just wonder, what if I had a top-notch recording? I think I would be taken more seriously. I'm not saying I'm some radical musician, but I do know that I've got something different to offer. It seems that it's not understood though. What I hear when I listen to myself is what I know I did, but maybe not everyone else can hear it, and if they do, the sound isn't enjoyable enough for them. It's like cheap whisky...it's potent...but doesen't taste as good. So even with more effort being there, it's still not appreciated by people who don't play music.

Hell, I sound like a crying old lady. But you know how it is, people would prefer to hear quality sound with a lack of ideas over a low budget recording with a creative edge to it.

I do have to do something here, because I've been stuck recording the same way for too long. If I can get another band together, I'm definitely going to have to upgrade, and any little thing I can get my hands on to sound better is mandatory.

All I can say is, check out the song I just uploaded "Effect Drown Grunge" and see for yourself.
It was done in about 20 minutes in 1 take for the pitch shift I use as the rhythm/bass line and 2 takes with no preparation on guitar, all direct recorded from my Zoom G2 into my analog mixer then into my soundcard's mic input.
The drum track is just the generic built in drum machine of the G2.
The program is a toyish one called Magix Music Maker Deluxe 2006 and for what it is, it makes one track at a time recording REALLY productive. The only setback I find is I sometimes get latency and have to slide the tracks a little to the left or right to sync perfectly to the drums.

No mixing, no bothering with levels, no tests etc. just me sitting here like a lazy ass on the couch toying around running on 4 hours a night sleep everyday for about the last 6 or 7 days.
For the preparation I put into it and just recording some improv, in my opinion it's evidence enough that with some proper testing, calibration and just overall preparation, sound card recordings more than cut the mustard.

Just imagine spending one full day on one song.
I would have easily produced something of the same quality you find on store shelves cut in a $5,000 a day elite studio.
Experiments like this are what convinced me not to bother with a multitrack workstation unless I end up in a band situation where we absolutely need it.

I don't know your MIDI needs but I do know this.
The REAL setback in any recording situation in my opinion is doing all the work yourself. All the instruments, all the experimenting, testing etc. It's very overwhelming and stressful.

Anyway, with some serious intention, proper setup, sound tests, mixing and most importantly, being thoroughly experienced with your equipment which I've yet to do, the tools are more than adequate it's just a matter of us being properly focused and motivated.
My setback is simply that I'm 1 person that wants to cut a really complex metal album and for that, there's no way around the need of a living breathing drummer.