[John Albert]

[[ I'm sitting in front of one right now. I don't much like
GarageBand. That's no slur on GarageBand, I just don't enjoy
clicking around with a mouse or tapping on a keyboard when
recording. ]]

Then get a control surface and tap on that.

There is (was?) at least one relatively low-priced control
surface marketed for GB, and I'm sure others will work with
it as well.

- John

[D.M. Procida]

John Albert wrote:

I'm sitting in front of one right now. I don't much like
GarageBand. That's no slur on GarageBand, I just don't enjoy clicking
around with a mouse or tapping on a keyboard when recording.

Then get a control surface and tap on that.

There is (was?) at least one relatively low-priced control
surface marketed for GB, and I'm sure others will work with
it as well.

I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but you're trying to solve a
problem that doesn't exist.

I don't want to use GarageBand, or any other computer software, or any
other digital recording system. I want to use a tape recorder.

Daniele

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
D.M. Procida wrote:
John Albert wrote:

I'm sitting in front of one right now. I don't much like
GarageBand. That's no slur on GarageBand, I just don't enjoy clicking
around with a mouse or tapping on a keyboard when recording.

Then get a control surface and tap on that.

There is (was?) at least one relatively low-priced control
surface marketed for GB, and I'm sure others will work with
it as well.

I'm sure you're trying to be helpful, but you're trying to solve a
problem that doesn't exist.

I don't want to use GarageBand, or any other computer software, or any
other digital recording system. I want to use a tape recorder.

So, call Funky Junk and order a 440-8, or an 8-track JH-110 machine.
There's nothing prevening you from using a tape machine other than the
phone call and the money.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Mike Rivers]

Neil Gould wrote:

I suspect that the reason is that a multitrack recorder is as different from
a DAW as a car is from an airplane. It would not be good to limit the
controls of an airplane to those found in a car. ;-)

But on the level of getting from one place to another, both have a way
of speeding up and slowing down, both have a way of steering. If you're
suggesting that knowing how to use a DAW requires something on the order
of clearance before starting to record and landing to stop a recording,
I don't know how anyone every manages to use one. But anyone can learn
pretty quickly what accelerator and brake pedals do.

Looking back over the development of the "home studio" concept from times
where one did away with control rooms and tried to manage a console and tape
machines while performing the tracks themselves to today's environment that
accounts for the vast majority of DAW sales, one can see that a big factor
driving design is automation. Auto-punch is a lot handier if you don't have
a separate engineer in the room.

That's a valid point, but not everyone works by himself. What's an
advantage, even even an enabler, to that kind of user means that the
other kind of user - where there's a live operator - needs to take extra
steps because the automated procedure is the ONLY way to do it.

There's a balance that needs to be found between throwing every possible
way of getting from here to there into the program and tell the user to
use whatever method he likes (unfortunately not all are always
documented, or aren't documented where you'd logically look for them),
and giving him only one way to do something. There are some functions
where it's better for the manufacturer to decide on the best way to do
something and just provide that, and others that allow for some personal
preferences.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)

[John Albert]

[[ I don't want to use GarageBand, or any other computer
software, or any
other digital recording system. I want to use a tape
recorder. ]]

I'll ask a question which is entirely serious:
Why, in this day and age, with the remarkable advancements
in recording technology that are now available at
next-to-nothing prices, would anyone still want to use a
tape recorder?

Don't you care about the quality of your recordings?

- John
(If you want an old Magencord 1024 2-track, you can have
mine for free - just come and pick it up!)

[Scott Dorsey]

John Albert wrote:

I'll ask a question which is entirely serious:
Why, in this day and age, with the remarkable advancements
in recording technology that are now available at
next-to-nothing prices, would anyone still want to use a
tape recorder?

Because it sounds good, and the workflow is pleasant, and the media
failure modes are all known now.

Don't you care about the quality of your recordings?

I do, and the longevity too. That's why I use the tape machine.

(If you want an old Magencord 1024 2-track, you can have
mine for free - just come and pick it up!)

No _wonder_ you don't like tape machines. I had to use a PT-6 for field
recording for a while and it left a bad taste in my mouth too. Suffice
it to say that a modern studio machine like the ATR-100 sounds a whole lot
better in every possible way.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
hank alrich wrote:

So you need a DAW controller, a hardware interface to mangle around.

Egg-zakly. But it has to be one that's designed by someone who has
actually used a multitrack recorder. Seems like there's always
something wrong with all of them, probably because of limitations as
to what the software can do.

I suspect that the reason is that a multitrack recorder is as different from
a DAW as a car is from an airplane. It would not be good to limit the
controls of an airplane to those found in a car. ;-) However, your point
is well-taken, and is the reason why my own DAW is a hybrid approach, where
I do all my tracking on an AW4416 and all mixing, editing and mastering on
the computer-based DAW that it is interfaced with.

For example, it boggles my mind that many DAWs are incapable of doing
a punch-in on a track in the conventional manner - arm the track,
start playing, then hit Record when you get to the punch-in point and
either Stop or Play when you get to the punch-out point. You can set
it up for auto-punch, but you can't do it manually. But that takes an
extra pass (or good bookkeeping) to set the punch points.

Looking back over the development of the "home studio" concept from times
where one did away with control rooms and tried to manage a console and tape
machines while performing the tracks themselves to today's environment that
accounts for the vast majority of DAW sales, one can see that a big factor
driving design is automation. Auto-punch is a lot handier if you don't have
a separate engineer in the room.

I suspect that the reason why this capability isn't present is because
they only think in DAW logic.

It *is* available in a hybrid approach, but that doesn't account for a very
large subset of DAW setups.

--
Neil

[D.M. Procida]

Scott Dorsey wrote:

I don't want to use GarageBand, or any other computer software, or any
other digital recording system. I want to use a tape recorder.

So, call Funky Junk and order a 440-8, or an 8-track JH-110 machine.
There's nothing prevening you from using a tape machine other than the
phone call and the money.

I will!

Well, I won't get one from Funky Junk, but from somewhere more local.

I won't rush into it, but I will acquire an 8-track or 16-track machine,
bearing in mind some of the suggestions about the advisability of using
narrower-track recorders.

In the meantime I've had a very kind offer from Adrian, to help me get
the heads realigned and the electrical adjustments performed, on my
A-3340, so I'm looking forward to using that again after all these
years.

As for the money, these machines seem to be remarkably cheap these days.

Daniele

[D.M. Procida]

John Albert wrote:

I'll ask a question which is entirely serious:
Why, in this day and age, with the remarkable advancements
in recording technology that are now available at
next-to-nothing prices, would anyone still want to use a
tape recorder?

Because it's fun. And I love seeing the reels go round and round.

Don't you care about the quality of your recordings?

The quality required for my purposes will easily be attained by any
properly set-up equipment of modest specification.

Having said that, I was listening last night to what I think must be the
best recording I have in the house, of Janos Starker playing cello
concertos (Schumann, Lalo and Saint-Saens). It was recorded in 1962
using three microphones and a three-track recorder (it's part of the
Mercury Living Presence series).

Even with the highest-specification equipment in the world I'd never
produce a recording that sounds as good as that (and I should add,
judging by other discs in my collection, neither have most other
recording professionals).

Anyway, the world is not short lacking in examples of extremely
high-quality tape recording, far surpassing any standards I could hope
to aspire to.

(If you want an old Magencord 1024 2-track, you can have
mine for free - just come and pick it up!)

Thanks, but I'm in Cardiff, Wales, and I'm after something with more
tracks.

Daniele

[Scott Dorsey]

In article ,
D.M. Procida wrote:

I won't rush into it, but I will acquire an 8-track or 16-track machine,
bearing in mind some of the suggestions about the advisability of using
narrower-track recorders.

In the meantime I've had a very kind offer from Adrian, to help me get
the heads realigned and the electrical adjustments performed, on my
A-3340, so I'm looking forward to using that again after all these
years.

Excellent! Watch the job because you're going to have to do it yourself
in the future. If you can do it on the Tascam, you can do it on anything.

As for the money, these machines seem to be remarkably cheap these days.

The economics have all changed. These days the machines are cheap, but
the maintenance is expensive and the tape is expensive. It's pretty much
the opposite of the situation in the seventies. These days when people
buy tape machines, they get a head report, because replacing the heads
will often cost more than the machines are worth. It's a little weird.

But _because_ the machines are remarkably cheap, you can pick up a standard
format studio machine for really no more money than a narrowtrack machine
will cost. Back in the seventies there were good economic reasons for using
the narrowtrack decks, but I don't think that's the case any longer.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Neil Gould]

Mike Rivers wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:

I suspect that the reason is that a multitrack recorder is as
different from a DAW as a car is from an airplane. It would not be
good to limit the controls of an airplane to those found in a car.
;-)

But on the level of getting from one place to another, both have a way
of speeding up and slowing down, both have a way of steering. If
you're suggesting that knowing how to use a DAW requires something on
the order of clearance before starting to record and landing to stop
a recording, I don't know how anyone every manages to use one. But
anyone can learn pretty quickly what accelerator and brake pedals do.

To continue the analogy, a car driver only has to be concerned with
direction and speed in two dimensions, while a pilot must be concerned with
three, so the similarity of control functions are limited by necessity. With
DAWs, one can work in more "dimensions" than the linear analog process
permits -- virtual tracks are but one small example -- but to do so the
similarity of control functions are also limited by necessity.

Looking back over the development of the "home studio" concept from
times where one did away with control rooms and tried to manage a
console and tape machines while performing the tracks themselves to
today's environment that accounts for the vast majority of DAW
sales, one can see that a big factor driving design is automation.
Auto-punch is a lot handier if you don't have a separate engineer in
the room.

That's a valid point, but not everyone works by himself. What's an
advantage, even even an enabler, to that kind of user means that the
other kind of user - where there's a live operator - needs to take
extra steps because the automated procedure is the ONLY way to do it.

That is why more than one kind of solution exists. If you want the
convenience of dedicated track assignments, transport controls, etc.,
something like an AW4416 is a good choice. Beyond having a control surface,
the AW OS also incorporates disc management that is designed for recording
audio, making it far superior to most software DAWs for doing multiple takes
in a multitrack session.

There's a balance that needs to be found between throwing every
possible way of getting from here to there into the program and tell
the user to use whatever method he likes [...] There are
some functions where it's better for the manufacturer to decide on
the best way to do something and just provide that, and others that
allow for some personal preferences.

That balance has pretty much always existed. If one can't or doesn't want to
"roll their own" solution to achieve that balance, then one could select the
DAW that works the way they want. The lack of presumption on the part of
inexpensive DAW software is probably to meet the expectations of the largest
market segment. But, that doesn't mean that there aren't available solutions
(i.e. Radar) that work the way one wants.

Best,

Neil

[Mike Rivers]

John Albert wrote:

I'll ask a question which is entirely serious:
Why, in this day and age, with the remarkable advancements in recording
technology that are now available at next-to-nothing prices, would
anyone still want to use a tape recorder?

Immediately removable media
You can see it working
You can troubleshoot it with real test equipment rather than debuggers
or wholesale replacement (reload the software)

A "tape recorder" doesn't necessarily have to use tape, all it has to do
is work like one. That means having all the same controls to do all the
things that you can do on a tape recorder, and have those controls take
the same form. Not to say that it CAN'T perform additional functions,
but that because it can, the basic functions that we use all the time
don't become more awkward. One simple example is a 24-track
recorder/mixer with 8 faders, track-arming buttons, and meters, and a
bank switch. If it's a 24-track recorder, I want 24 buttons. I don't
mind setting a reasonable limit.

Don't you care about the quality of your recordings?

Sure. Tape recorders can sound very good. You just have to get a good
one and keep it maintained. Just like with a DAW.

--
If you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring and reach
me he
double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo -- I'm really Mike Rivers
)