David Morgan \(MAMS\) wrote:
"Roger W. Norman" wrote in message ...
Perhaps it's time to start talking about a RADAR w/Nyquist converters?
Certainly numerous people that have been working with 24 track analog have
opted for a RADAR as a backup/alternative unit and been pleased.

We haven't thought about RADAR, even for the long term... but I'll put it on
the dentist's 'wish-list'.

RADAR is really sort of the best of both worlds. You get a user interface
that is a lot like a tape machine, and the general tape machine feel. But
you also get the ability to do some sophisticated editing with the ability
to undo it as well.

The converters are pretty good, and you get the wonderful digital bottom end
which seems to be the big reason to go digital, more than anything else. Nice
and solid, no tape bump, no ragged crap below the bump, just accurate and solid
all the way down. The top end isn't perfect but it's pretty good.

I can see some reasons to pick analogue machines or other digital machines
over the RADAR, but the RADAR is a good compromise that gives you much of
what I like about each one.

Right now, there's a Paris there with 24 inputs, but the guy that brought it
to the studio can't get it configured and I've already fabricated EDACs to
feed it from the 24-track. The again, right now the 2" machine couldn't
play the tracks to back it up.

That's basically what RADAR buys you. It's a recording appliance. You don't
spend so much time fighting with the hardware.

And you will be dumping tracks to PT, right? So why wouldn't the Mitsu work
unless there's some godawful reason to need 24 concurrent tracks, of which
that space certainly belies the possibility.

We're way over 16. There were 9 on the drums, and there has to be room
for some alternate takes on vocals and guitar. :-(

Well, it could be worse.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."