Does anyone record without using computer based tech.?

[Lee Flier]

Exactly Ken.

[MikeRivers]

 

Originally posted by Dave D After using analog again I've come to the conclusion that digital can sound real good but it takes a hell of a lot more work to get there.

It actually takes a hell of a lot more money than most people spend on digital recording equipment to get there. While cheap digital recording equipment is better than ever, there's still a gap between the typical pretty good project studio and the really top shelf stuff - gear that you don't have to fight to get the same thing out that you put in.

 

Analog recording is a different story. You never quite get the same thing out that you put in, but what you get out (assuming you have a good analog recorder) sounds very good to our ear. In that sense, it's like a signal processor.

 

But it's difficult to compare the relative quality of analog and digital recorders, particularly down at the low end where most of us hang out. A TASCAM 80-8 is a long way in sound from an Ampex MM1100 - I know. I moved from an 80-8 to an MM1100 and the difference today would be compared to the difference (but for different reasons) between home digital and professional analog.

 

Lots of people have heard recordings made on an Ampex or a Studer, but not many today have ever actually used anything in their own studios much higher grade than a TASCAM. And the reason why digital was embraced so quickly was that to many, analog was a 4-track cassette. So it's no wonder some consider an analog recorder to be a signal processor for their digital rig.

 

I'd experiment with using a TASCAM as a processor, but I'd much rather ditch the digital and record on the Ampex. Unfortunately, today's budgets don't accommodate that.

 

But I still don't use a general purpose computer for recording unless it's the only practical way, which, sometimes, it is.

[loumi]

Like HCarlH I use a Roland VS-880 for live recording. I also have used it for mixing my son's first CD. I do plan to get into the whole computer/MIDI thing, but for now, the digital recorder is working great. Even after going computer/MIDI, I will still likely use the VS-880 for live recording.

 

Lou

[tucktronix]

Used to record my sequences to a Tascam Portastudio 4 track cassette several years ago. I can also remember recording to a Teac 4 track reel-to-reel that was owned by a friend of mine, how the quality was 20 steps above recording on cassette. Now, I use a Fostex DMT-8vL 8-track HD recorder that I have been using for nearly 9 years. I can still get that warmth into my mixes with the built-in analog mixer.

[Karma1]

As an "old school" musician, I resisted the whole computer recording thing for a long time, preferring the user-friendliness of recording on Adat's. I'm definitely not a "computer person" and the learning curve of most recording programs was intimidating enough that I didn't want to put my time into learning them. However, when I recorded my last cd a couple years ago on Adat and then took the tracks to another studio and dumped them into ProTools, it was incredible how much creativity was opened up for me by the editing features that were available.

 

Since then, I've gotten a ProTools LE and Mbox rig and am currently recording my new cd with it. There's so much to learn about it and I'm struggling along with it, but I'm really liking the new-found abilities it provides in the recording process. Having the visual component of seeing the waveforms on the screen is a huge plus. And being able to chop up parts of the song and move them around with the click of a mouse has opened new doors for my recording and composing process. I'm not selling my Adat's yet, but if you need editing capability in your recording, it's hard to beat the advantages a computer offers. Interestingly enough, up until about a year or two ago, I was probably the last person who would be extolling the virtues of recording on computers.