Please forgive me if this seems like an elementary question, but I've been
tape based for 25 years and am only now beginning to think about moving to a
hard disk based system.

I understand that, for tracking, many people use stand alone hard disk
systems such as the Tascam MX2424 or IZ's Radar, instead of computer based
systems such as ProTools or Performer. Then they transfer to one of the
computer systems for editing and often mix in either the computer or use it
as a pseudo tape deck feeding either an analog or digital mixer.

My question is: why do this? What are the advantages of tracking to a stand
alone hard disk system as opposed to tracking directly in, say Performer or
ProTools? I understand that some people prefer the sound of the stand alone
systems, but using outboard converters for tracking (as many do) largely
eliminates this issue. Also, I understand that for remotes, the stand alone
system may be more reliable than a computer. But other than these two
reasons, in a studio situation, why do people prefer to track to a stand
alone hard disk (given that they intend to transfer to a computer system for
editing) instead of the hard disk in their computer system?

paul tumolo wrote:
My question is: why do this? What are the advantages of tracking to a stand
alone hard disk system as opposed to tracking directly in, say Performer or
ProTools? I understand that some people prefer the sound of the stand alone
systems, but using outboard converters for tracking (as many do) largely
eliminates this issue. Also, I understand that for remotes, the stand alone
system may be more reliable than a computer. But other than these two
reasons, in a studio situation, why do people prefer to track to a stand
alone hard disk (given that they intend to transfer to a computer system for
editing) instead of the hard disk in their computer system?

Because they like the user interface on the standalone system more than
the interfaces on the computer systems. Or they like the sound of one
particular system that happens to be standalone.

A lot of folks use RADAR... and the only difference between the rather
expensive standalone RADAR system and a typical inexpensive DAW is the
user interface, which is worth every penny of what it costs to my mind.

Other people feel differently, so they don't.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Because they like the user interface on the standalone system more than
the interfaces on the computer systems.

This is really a personal preference thing. I think the way you come into
digital has a lot do to with what your comfortable with. I started with ADATs,
and transfered tracks to the DAW for editing, then transfered them back for
analog mixing. It also depends on your clients. For seasoned performers who
make few mistakes either way works fine. For demos and less experienced
performers I find recording in the DAW easier and intuitive. For example..last
week had a solo project artist in..recorded acoustic and voice to a click and
brought in a drummer later. Many takes were good except for a few fills,
sections transitions,etc..because I was in the actual DAW project we could try
other fills, changes, whatever..and plug them right in to see if they worked.
This really needed to be done on the spot because the tracks were to be used
the next day for further overdubs and needed to be finals as opposed to a
collection of pieces to be editing together later. Overall I find recording
direct to the DAW a drastic time saver, plus the more time you spend with the
software the better you will get with it..which is probably the most important
skill to master as quickly as you can..as this is what allows the whole process
to become transparent. YMMV


John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

In article writes:

I understand that, for tracking, many people use stand alone hard disk
systems such as the Tascam MX2424 or IZ's Radar, instead of computer based
systems such as ProTools or Performer.

Not too many, much to the disappointment of the manufacturers, but
yes, there are a hard core of us who still don't want to use a
computer as a recorder and mixer and signal processor and mailbox.

My question is: why do this? What are the advantages of tracking to a stand
alone hard disk system as opposed to tracking directly in, say Performer or
ProTools?

Tradition and familiarity. Most, if not all of the functions of a
conventional tape deck can be found somewhere on a DAW, but you have
to look harder for them. I'd rather have a button for everything and
I'm willing to pay for it. Others are satisfied with a screen, and
sometimes shared buttons on a hardware control surface. But yes, it's
quite possible to build your own recorder today out of parts that you
can buy at your local music store. Then you have to make it work. I
let Mackie do that for me.

I understand that some people prefer the sound of the stand alone
systems, but using outboard converters for tracking (as many do) largely
eliminates this issue.

Of the lot, only RADAR has a reputation that involves anything special
about sound. The others are just fine, none of them allow you to do
"tape compression" though with a computer, you can add something that
somebody thinks resembles that effect after the fact.

Also, I understand that for remotes, the stand alone
system may be more reliable than a computer.

It's certainly less hassle to set up unless you've taken care to
package your computer, interface, and cables as well as a stand-alone
recorder manufacturer has. But you can drop a 4 rack space box just as
easily as you can drop a laptop computer, and the results will be
about the same with both.

But other than these two
reasons, in a studio situation, why do people prefer to track to a stand
alone hard disk (given that they intend to transfer to a computer system for
editing) instead of the hard disk in their computer system?

I can only speak for myself - it's because I don't want to be
responsible for building and maintaining a computer that I'm going to
be using for recording. Also, I prefer a self-contained unit that does
not require a keyboard, mouse, monitor, external interface, etc.

The two reasons why people go the computer route is because it costs
less and it can do more.

Your choice.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers - )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. 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 understand that, for tracking, many people use stand alone hard disk
systems such as the Tascam MX2424 or IZ's Radar, instead of computer based
systems such as ProTools or Performer.

I'm one of those people. I chose RADAR cause I have a low tolerance for crashes
and inconvenience, generally. RADAR makes the things that you typically do in a
session fast, intuitive and reliable. It almost never crashes and it sounds
inspirationally good. You never have to worry about saving or losing your
work. Its done automatically after each event (record, edit, erase). If the
power goes out while you are working you are covered.

It is not a substitute for the whole studio as ProTools is. There are no plug
ins-- it doesnt do EQ, compression, reverb etc. Its just a recorder but an
excellent one.
In my experience Protools without the expensive control surface is
prohibitively inconvenient. Things that take a fraction of a second on an
analog mixer take 20 times as long to do with a mouse. This becomes a serious
consideration when its something you do many times per session. When you make
your living doing this the little things loom large.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

Paul,

If you have been tape based for 25 years you undoubtedly have a
colection of great outboard gear, a decent console and a habit of
working in a certain fashion navigating around your equipment that you
will find impossible to re-learn.
After almost 20 years of analog use I decided to (reluctantly at the
time) embrace the digital age, and opted for a Radar II almost a year
ago to the date. I have never regretted the decision, and have adapted
to the machine with almost no learning curve, no downtime, and very
little time looking stupid and perplexed in front of my clients whilst
figuring out how to do a simple edit.
I was able to absorb the cost nicely, since I replaced only the
recorder at the time, and did not have to incur the costs of replacing
the entire studio.
Protools as an option is desireable only if you purchase (at least) a
control 24, preferably a pro control interface, all the high end
converters, and then a couple of really good mic-preamps to retain some
of the analog sound you have become accustomed to.
anything less than a complete immersion (expensive) such as this will
drive you crazy in about 2 weeks and have you longing for all the drugs
you probably did in high school just to calm your nerves. If you have
never used a computer based workstation/mixer interface, I can see why
you might pose the question, but trust in the fact that the guys who are
doing the tracking/transferring etc you mention, are doing so with good
reason. The most noteable one being simple ergonomics of the interface,
speed of operation in a pro environment, reliability and also cost!
A RADAR II equipped with the standard 24bit 48K converters sounds VERY
good...the Niquist upgrade to 96K will set you back a couple of grand
more, but will exceed the sonics of the Protools converters...for less
money. You now have a system with a better user interface for tracking,
with some very decent basic editing capability. Just how much editing
etc you might want to do with pro tools is of course the issue, but can
lead to option anxiety and possibly a "we can fix it later" syndrome
developing, which again, will drive you nuts after about two weeks of
trying to repair what the performer should have been able to do in the
first place.

I am an analog guy with a digital Stand-alone recorder and like it that
way! I intend to upgrade my console in the near future with a decent
analog desk that incorporates some more up-to-date capabilities for 5.1
surround, dynamics, automation etc. I simply can't get used to
keyboard/mouse/monitor as my studio....and anything in a digital
workstation environment that I can purchase to replace what I already
have and retain the sound I am used to will set me back tens-of
thousands $$$...sure I can sell most of my processors for pennies on the
dollar, but will I be much further ahead???

It all depends on where you are starting from, and it seems to me
someone with your background might want to start with a system such as
RADAR and go from there.

paul tumolo wrote:
Please forgive me if this seems like an elementary question, but I've been
tape based for 25 years and am only now beginning to think about moving to a
hard disk based system.

I understand that, for tracking, many people use stand alone hard disk
systems such as the Tascam MX2424 or IZ's Radar, instead of computer based
systems such as ProTools or Performer. Then they transfer to one of the
computer systems for editing and often mix in either the computer or use it
as a pseudo tape deck feeding either an analog or digital mixer.

My question is: why do this? What are the advantages of tracking to a stand
alone hard disk system as opposed to tracking directly in, say Performer or
ProTools? I understand that some people prefer the sound of the stand alone
systems, but using outboard converters for tracking (as many do) largely
eliminates this issue. Also, I understand that for remotes, the stand alone
system may be more reliable than a computer. But other than these two
reasons, in a studio situation, why do people prefer to track to a stand
alone hard disk (given that they intend to transfer to a computer system for
editing) instead of the hard disk in their computer system?

In my experience Protools without the expensive control surface is
prohibitively inconvenient. Things that take a fraction of a second on an
analog mixer take 20 times as long to do with a mouse. This becomes a serious
consideration when its something you do many times per session. When you make
your living doing this the little things loom large.


On the flip side of that...making an aux send adjustment that lasts 1 sec in
the middle of a 4 minute songs..on just one track of say..vocals..only has to
be done once in a DAW and it's always the same...I would have to program some
kind of automation on a analog board and even then all my setting aren't
remembered. I've gone from total analog..I'm even opening 2 clubs so I can mix
in an great live situation...to mixing completely "in the box" and I find it
faster than before. Plus you can construct basic mixes along the way. I've done
2 sessions this week that were live bands playing live for scratch demos. All
recorded, "mixed" with effects and editing, bounced, and CD's burned..all
within a few hours. Having to transfer tracks to edit and mix would not allow
me to do this...not in that short a time. Another plus for me is the non hassle
factor. I don't have to worry about possible problems with files transfers,
backups, and any other things that could go wrong..when it's in the box..it
where it will end up...fast and easy.YMMV

I really don't crave a control surface. I use Samplitude, which has object
based editing..and I never feel the need to reach for a fader or knob.



John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

Just how much editing
etc you might want to do with pro tools is of course the issue, but can
lead to option anxiety and possibly a "we can fix it later" syndrome
developing, which again, will drive you nuts after about two weeks of
trying to repair what the performer should have been able to do in the
first place.

This is exactly why I PREFER the DAW setup. Even with drum tracking..usually
the hardest and longest continuous sessions..you can retake a section and know
NOW if it is going to work. Doing this and having to transfer later actually
involves more risk and hoping than not.
I know that I don't get to work with a lot of one take pros..and for others who
don't a well implemented DAW can save a ton of time even in tracking sessions.




John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637