I have had a VS-1680 for around 4 years, and it was a good system, but
I think it is time to move on. I am not very happy with the A/D
converters, and the preamps make me want to throw it out the window.
Plus, I am sick of looking at the little screen.

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.

In article writes:

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.

Turn off your computer. Buy an Ampex MM1200 and an MCI or Trident
console. Shouldn't cost you any more than a nicely equipped ProTools
or Nuendo system (except for tape - use less, make more decisions as
you record). Say "no" to software upgrades and obsolescence.

I'm really being somewhat serious here. Think about it

--
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

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1087761656k@trad...

In article
writes:

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.

Turn off your computer. Buy an Ampex MM1200 and an MCI or Trident
console. Shouldn't cost you any more than a nicely equipped ProTools
or Nuendo system (except for tape - use less, make more decisions as
you record). Say "no" to software upgrades and obsolescence.

I'm really being somewhat serious here. Think about it

So, you're saying that the next step from a VS machine is a MM1200 and an
MCI or Trident? Interesting :-) Ok, I'm teasing a bit. How bout some good
outboard pre/ converters and a computer? Add a used d8b and stir well.

Subject: I'm going to punt my VS-1680 - give me a recommendation on my
next syst
From: "Romeo Rondeau"
Date: 6/20/2004 10:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:


"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
news:znr1087761656k@trad...

In article
writes:

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.

Turn off your computer. Buy an Ampex MM1200 and an MCI or Trident
console. Shouldn't cost you any more than a nicely equipped ProTools
or Nuendo system (except for tape - use less, make more decisions as
you record). Say "no" to software upgrades and obsolescence.

I'm really being somewhat serious here. Think about it

So, you're saying that the next step from a VS machine is a MM1200 and an
MCI or Trident? Interesting :-) Ok, I'm teasing a bit. How bout some good
outboard pre/ converters and a computer? Add a used d8b and stir well.


I thought the part about "saying no to obsolescence" right after he suggested
analog was the interesting part.

ok, ok... flame away.
-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

In article
writes:

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.


Anything you get now will be obsolete before it's unpacked. Get used to
it.

The thing you want is a stable system that runs reliably. That you can
switch on and it "just works," with little muss nor fuss.

Are you planning on building a room in your basement, or are you
planning on doing "live remote" recording?

In "live remote," how much space you have is a serious issue. So is
whether or not you'll be out with the beer and smokes.

A fixed-function hard-disk recorder might be the "right solution" for
you.

A better HD recorder with a small mixer might also be the "right
solution"

Tape might also be the "right solution."

Where are you gonna be recording? Are you willing to fuss with things,
or are you looking for a turnkey solution?

In article writes:

So, you're saying that the next step from a VS machine is a MM1200 and an
MCI or Trident? Interesting :-) Ok, I'm teasing a bit.

My reason for suggesting this path is this:

It costs a little more, but not an unreasonable amount more.

You'll be using fully professional equipment that's designed to not
break very often, but which can be serviced when it breaks, and it's
old enough so that it's had all the upgrades it will ever have.

People working in most forms of music production strive to get a
"warm, full, analog sound." There's no better way to get it than with
analog equipment. They may learn that this is not really what's most
important to them, but they'll never know until they try the real
thing.

It can be easily integrated with digital tools where that's
appropriate.

Having a limited number of tracks and (due to media cost) a limited
number of takes changes the way you work, often in a positive manner.
It makes you think about where you're heading rather than always
wondering if you're there yet, or if you should add one more part.

How bout some good
outboard pre/ converters and a computer?

Sure. Anything you can afford.

Add a used d8b and stir well.

If your production life centers around full automation, then this
might not be such a bad choice, but there are a lot of trade-offs (in
both directions).



--
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

In article writes:

I thought the part about "saying no to obsolescence" right after he suggested
analog was the interesting part.

Thinking about the day when there will be no more analog recording
tape available? I suppose that will happen some time, but probably not
before there are multitrack digital recorders that are fully as
reliable and repairable (I don't believe they'll ever be cheap enough
to be truly disposable) as analog recorders.

I love my Mackie HDR24/96, but I doubt that it will last as long in
service as my Ampex MM1100 did (and it's probably still going). The
Ampex came with a manual containing schematics, wiring diagrams, parts
lists, and a Theory of Operation section that helps get through the
schematics. While there are some parts that can't be replaced by the
originals, there isn't really anything in there that doesn't have a
substitute that will work fine.

Mackie will provide a service manual on request, and it may be
possible to do a certain amount of board-level repair if there's a
component failure on a circuit board. However, there's EPROM code
which is, and as far as I can see, will remain in the vaults at
Mackie. When you need a new EPROM to make your recorder work and
there's no Mackie, the only way you'll be able to get it is from a
pirate with a PROM burner. I don't see Mackie owners sticking together
at this level of technology the way Ampex owners do.

--
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

It's another all in one box - but I am very satisfied w/ sound
quality, ease of use, flexibility of routing, software stability and
inter-platform exchange of audio. Check out the Akai DPS24. I've
been using it a year for small ensembles and live multitrack
recording. Check out the independent usergroup @
http://p206.ezboard.com/fdpsworldfrm3

Good luck, as always, YMMV.
Rob

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1087818333k@trad...
In article writes:

I thought the part about "saying no to obsolescence" right after he suggested
analog was the interesting part.

Thinking about the day when there will be no more analog recording
tape available? I suppose that will happen some time, but probably not
before there are multitrack digital recorders that are fully as
reliable and repairable (I don't believe they'll ever be cheap enough
to be truly disposable) as analog recorders.

I love my Mackie HDR24/96, but I doubt that it will last as long in
service as my Ampex MM1100 did (and it's probably still going). The
Ampex came with a manual containing schematics, wiring diagrams, parts
lists, and a Theory of Operation section that helps get through the
schematics. While there are some parts that can't be replaced by the
originals, there isn't really anything in there that doesn't have a
substitute that will work fine.

Mackie will provide a service manual on request, and it may be
possible to do a certain amount of board-level repair if there's a
component failure on a circuit board. However, there's EPROM code
which is, and as far as I can see, will remain in the vaults at
Mackie. When you need a new EPROM to make your recorder work and
there's no Mackie, the only way you'll be able to get it is from a
pirate with a PROM burner. I don't see Mackie owners sticking together
at this level of technology the way Ampex owners do.


The place you will get sucked into the void with a 2 inch 24 track is
at mixdown. You will need several good compressors and maybe some
expander/gate units as well.

A good option would be to go with something like a Tascam ATR-60 16
track. Do your core tracks on it. Get something like the Motu 24i so
you can bounce straight into it with your tracks. There you can
sweeten a bit and use some use something like Waves rennaissance
compressor pacage from Waves and voila.

Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com

"U-CDK_CHARLES\\Charles" "Charles wrote in message .. .
In article
writes:

I have been doing my homework on PT, Cubase, Nuendo, the Tascan SX-1,
but want to know if anyone out there has any particular advice to pick
one over the other, or to stay away from one or the other.

I primarily am going to use this to record myself and local
artists/small bands. The style of music will probably be guitar
based.


Anything you get now will be obsolete before it's unpacked. Get used to
it.

The thing you want is a stable system that runs reliably. That you can
switch on and it "just works," with little muss nor fuss.

Are you planning on building a room in your basement, or are you
planning on doing "live remote" recording?

In "live remote," how much space you have is a serious issue. So is
whether or not you'll be out with the beer and smokes.

A fixed-function hard-disk recorder might be the "right solution" for
you.

A better HD recorder with a small mixer might also be the "right
solution"

Tape might also be the "right solution."

Where are you gonna be recording? Are you willing to fuss with things,
or are you looking for a turnkey solution?

This set-up is going to be in a converted garage apartment with a
small room and a smaller room, so I don't think I can go the big
console route (Oddly enough, you are the second person in a week who
recommended I get a Trident console). Even if cost and space weren't
an issue(and I don't think I could get it up the stairs), it's more
than what I need.

I mainly want to record myself and anyone else who interests me. I
would like to put out a high quality product but can't really spend
the $$$ to have a top of the line system because this is going to be a
hobby/sideline/distraction. I think my money is best spent on a solid
system that will work well, and then buy better mics, preamps, and
other gear.

I guess I am leaning towards Pro Tools (Alsihad? Is that what they
call it?), because I seem to know the most about it(yes, push
marketing does work). However, I don't want to overlook other
computer based systems simply because I don't know about them.

Mike, I guess I am not ruling out tape altogether, but I really know
nothing about these machines. Do you have a recommendation on a
smaller scale set up (16 tracks - you can't fit 6 people in my space),
so doing more than 8 at once won't really be an issue. Any advice is
appreciated.

On 21 Jun 2004 12:58:21 -0700, orbb wrote:

This set-up is going to be in a converted garage apartment with a
small room and a smaller room, so I don't think I can go the big
console route (Oddly enough, you are the second person in a week who
recommended I get a Trident console). Even if cost and space weren't
an issue(and I don't think I could get it up the stairs), it's more
than what I need.


So you're stationary.

How handy are you? You like to play with computers?

Generally, you trade money for convenience.

Macs are more expensive, but they basically Just Work, whereas with a
WinXP solution you can spend MUCH less money, but may need some
tweaking.

Build or Buy is the same tradeoff.

If you're on a budget, take a look at Audacity for your recording. Free
as in Beer and free as in Open Source. Runs on most everything.

The thing to remember about a computer, any computer is that it's a
brick that runs software. I'm currently leaning towards Cakewalk Sonar,
which runs under XP, so I built a PC. I'm currently refreshing my
*COUGHS* years out of date engineering skills with Audacity.

Spend your money on a supported multitrack interface (for whatever
platform). Eventually, you'll reach the point where you can see the
possibilities of "features."

At that point, you have your shopping list.

Right now, I'm still longing for a razor blade, so my digital chops aren't
QUITE there yet.

In article writes:

The place you will get sucked into the void with a 2 inch 24 track is
at mixdown. You will need several good compressors and maybe some
expander/gate units as well.

Maybe that's true for you. I was working for more than 30 years
with two compressors before the RNC came out. Now I have three
compressors. I agree that pop music is based on squashing everything,
so you get a bunch of compressors. No big deal. It's only money. Or
you go to a very well equipped studio to mix.

A good option would be to go with something like a Tascam ATR-60 16
track. Do your core tracks on it. Get something like the Motu 24i so
you can bounce straight into it with your tracks. There you can
sweeten a bit and use some use something like Waves rennaissance
compressor pacage from Waves and voila.

But my idea was to get rid of the computer other than perhaps for
mixdown. If you're going that route, you might as well just record to
the computer and be done with it. And you can record a bejillion
tracks and spend the next six months deciding whether the first
syllable in Loooooo-uve in take 18 was better than the one in take
two.



--
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

In article writes:

Mike, I guess I am not ruling out tape altogether, but I really know
nothing about these machines. Do you have a recommendation on a
smaller scale set up (16 tracks - you can't fit 6 people in my space)

Tracks don't take up a lot of physical space in the room, so there's
no appreicable difference in size between an Ampex MM-1200 24-, 16-,
or 8-track recorder. In fact, there's really not much difference in
terms of footprint between an Ampex and, say, a TASCAM MS-16 other
than that the TASCAM sits on a table or in a rack while the Ampex goes
all the way to the floor. The MM-1200 is a fairly small machine. So is
the Otari MX-80 series - newer, but harder to work on and probalby
harder to find parts for than the Ampex. An Otari MTR-90, Studer A-827
or MCI JH-anything are larger machines (as is the Ampex MM-1000) which
is why I didn't suggest those.

If you're going with ProTools anyway, then you might as well just
forget the recorder. You can use ProTools for your recorder, and you
can, if you insist, mix in ProTools. Or you can get a console and mix
using the console, and do some signal processing in ProTools. That's
probably the best of all worlds, but if you don't have space for the
console, then I guess you're stuck with "the box."



--
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

But my idea was to get rid of the computer other than perhaps for
mixdown. If you're going that route, you might as well just record to
the computer and be done with it. And you can record a bejillion
tracks and spend the next six months deciding whether the first
syllable in Loooooo-uve in take 18 was better than the one in take
two.

I don't really record that way, I just use it as I would a tape machine.

My reason for suggesting this path is this:

It costs a little more, but not an unreasonable amount more.

You'll be using fully professional equipment that's designed to not
break very often, but which can be serviced when it breaks, and it's
old enough so that it's had all the upgrades it will ever have.

Yeah, but some of these machines can be a bear at times. They can eat your
wallet if things break. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though.


People working in most forms of music production strive to get a
"warm, full, analog sound." There's no better way to get it than with
analog equipment. They may learn that this is not really what's most
important to them, but they'll never know until they try the real
thing.

I think the "warm analog sound" is overrated. Nothing beats a good mic on a
good source with good electronics in the signal path.


It can be easily integrated with digital tools where that's
appropriate.

Having a limited number of tracks and (due to media cost) a limited
number of takes changes the way you work, often in a positive manner.
It makes you think about where you're heading rather than always
wondering if you're there yet, or if you should add one more part.

An analog tape machine never stopped anyone from adding too many parts :-)


How bout some good
outboard pre/ converters and a computer?

Sure. Anything you can afford.

Add a used d8b and stir well.

If your production life centers around full automation, then this
might not be such a bad choice, but there are a lot of trade-offs (in
both directions).

I was thinking of having actual controls (even though there aren't enough
knobs for me) and taking some of the load off the CPU, but the automation
angle is a good point. I find that with a computer feeding tracks to the
console, I have to use less automation because I have so much control in the
computer. I really like actual faders, even if they are only for controlling
the DSPs in the console. The talkback section and monitoring in the console
is worth the ticket price, IMO. You also get the HUI control, which really
makes the computer act like a tape machine.

(Mike Rivers) wrote in message news:znr1087849971k@trad...
In article writes:

Mike, I guess I am not ruling out tape altogether, but I really know
nothing about these machines. Do you have a recommendation on a
smaller scale set up (16 tracks - you can't fit 6 people in my space)

Tracks don't take up a lot of physical space in the room, so there's
no appreicable difference in size between an Ampex MM-1200 24-, 16-,
or 8-track recorder. In fact, there's really not much difference in
terms of footprint between an Ampex and, say, a TASCAM MS-16 other
than that the TASCAM sits on a table or in a rack while the Ampex goes
all the way to the floor. The MM-1200 is a fairly small machine. So is
the Otari MX-80 series - newer, but harder to work on and probalby
harder to find parts for than the Ampex. An Otari MTR-90, Studer A-827
or MCI JH-anything are larger machines (as is the Ampex MM-1000) which
is why I didn't suggest those.

If you're going with ProTools anyway, then you might as well just
forget the recorder. You can use ProTools for your recorder, and you
can, if you insist, mix in ProTools. Or you can get a console and mix
using the console, and do some signal processing in ProTools. That's
probably the best of all worlds, but if you don't have space for the
console, then I guess you're stuck with "the box."

Thanks for all the input.

In article writes:

Yeah, but some of these machines can be a bear at times. They can eat your
wallet if things break. Keep in mind I'm not saying it's a bad idea, though.

Thing is that other than routine maintenance like cleaning and
alignment (which only costs time, and not a lot once you have all the
tools and know where all the adjustments are located) you only fix
them when they break. With computers, we're constantly "breaking" them
with updates, and spending money on software upgrades, plug-ins, and
the like. We do this because it's necessary in order to maintain
supportability for the system.

I think the "warm analog sound" is overrated. Nothing beats a good mic on a
good source with good electronics in the signal path.

I agree. But it's hard to change opinions with common sense.

An analog tape machine never stopped anyone from adding too many parts :-)

In theory, no, but after the first bounce people start worrying about
generation loss. It's a powerful deterrent to anyone who wants to
"make professional recordings of my music at home" but it's also a
powerful tool for those willing to learn how much they can get away
with.

I was thinking of having actual controls (even though there aren't enough
knobs for me) and taking some of the load off the CPU, but the automation
angle is a good point. I find that with a computer feeding tracks to the
console, I have to use less automation because I have so much control in the
computer.

The big advantage of the console in this situation is that you have
instant storage and instant recall of static conditions without a lot
of fooling around. For people who work on a dozen projects at once,
most of which take a year or more to complete, it's easy to call up a
snapshot and have all your routing, basic EQ, and monitoring set up
right on the console. When it comes to things like smoothing out level
within a track, or goosing up a swallowed syllable or note, doing this
on the computer rather than letting the console bump a fader every
pass is almost certainly quicker and may also be more accurate.

But when it comes to just pushing up the faders and getting a rough
mix using your ears and musical talent, nothing beats a console. You
can "normalize" that mix, store it as a snapshot, and then start
tweaking on the computer. If there's a smooth fader ride that you find
works well, you can do that on the console and have it remembered. Or
if you have the console set up to control levels in the computer, you
can do that and have the computer remember it. However that usually
means having to move over to the computer and push some buttons or
select some items from a menu, and that may break your workflow at the
console.


--
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

Thanks for all the input.

I might interject a thought quick thought here. Since you're moviing
from a VS and you mentioned the SX-1.

If you're thinking about staying with an all-in-one format, you might
look at the Akai DPS24. It is a substantial upgrade from the 1680.
It's a substantial upgrade from a 2480.

I upgraded from a 2480, and the Akai really spanks the Roland
sonically. It can interface with a computer, so you can run all the
plug-ins your heart desires. It has sample accurate editing.
Import/exports Broadcast .wav files. 100 mm touch-sensitive faders.

And, it has all the little things that make a difference, like a mono
button, very cheap remote optionsm (it uses an LRC), and seemless
punching. It's been quite stable every since it's release.

Oh yea, 24 tracks of uncompressed audio. The Tasky only does 16.

They are streeting for $2,500 right now. An incredible value in my
opinion.

Taylor

My experience agrees with Taylor's - I posted my reply a few days ago
in an orphaned thread. The DPS24 usergroup & its archives are
valuable enough information for those who might be interested that
I'll use some bandwidth to post it again.

"It's another all in one box - but I am very satisfied w/ sound
quality, ease of use, flexibility of routing, software stability and
inter-platform exchange of audio. Check out the Akai DPS24. I've
been using it a year for small ensembles and live multitrack
recording. Check out the independent usergroup @
http://p206.ezboard.com/fdpsworldfrm3

Good luck, as always, YMMV.
Rob"

If you're thinking about staying with an all-in-one format, you might
look at the Akai DPS24. It is a substantial upgrade from the 1680.
It's a substantial upgrade from a 2480.

I upgraded from a 2480, and the Akai really spanks the Roland
sonically. It can interface with a computer, so you can run all the
plug-ins your heart desires. It has sample accurate editing.
Import/exports Broadcast .wav files. 100 mm touch-sensitive faders.

And, it has all the little things that make a difference, like a mono
button, very cheap remote optionsm (it uses an LRC), and seemless
punching. It's been quite stable every since it's release.

Oh yea, 24 tracks of uncompressed audio. The Tasky only does 16.

They are streeting for $2,500 right now. An incredible value in my
opinion.

Taylor

My experience agrees with Taylor's - I posted my reply a few days ago
in an orphaned thread. The DPS24 usergroup & its archives are
valuable enough information for those who might be interested that
I'll use some bandwidth to post it again.

"It's another all in one box - but I am very satisfied w/ sound
quality, ease of use, flexibility of routing, software stability and
inter-platform exchange of audio. Check out the Akai DPS24. I've
been using it a year for small ensembles and live multitrack
recording. Check out the independent usergroup @
http://p206.ezboard.com/fdpsworldfrm3

Good luck, as always, YMMV.
Rob"

If you're thinking about staying with an all-in-one format, you might
look at the Akai DPS24. It is a substantial upgrade from the 1680.
It's a substantial upgrade from a 2480.

I upgraded from a 2480, and the Akai really spanks the Roland
sonically. It can interface with a computer, so you can run all the
plug-ins your heart desires. It has sample accurate editing.
Import/exports Broadcast .wav files. 100 mm touch-sensitive faders.

And, it has all the little things that make a difference, like a mono
button, very cheap remote optionsm (it uses an LRC), and seemless
punching. It's been quite stable every since it's release.

Oh yea, 24 tracks of uncompressed audio. The Tasky only does 16.

They are streeting for $2,500 right now. An incredible value in my
opinion.

Taylor

"It's another all in one box - but I am very satisfied w/ sound
quality, ease of use, flexibility of routing, software stability and
inter-platform exchange of audio. Check out the Akai DPS24. I've
been using it a year for small ensembles and live multitrack
recording. Check out the independent usergroup @
http://p206.ezboard.com/fdpsworldfrm3

Good luck, as always, YMMV.
Rob"

Here's a good read from a couple of members of the Akai board.

http://www.digitalprosound.com/artic...e.jsp?id=26335

"It's another all in one box - but I am very satisfied w/ sound
quality, ease of use, flexibility of routing, software stability and
inter-platform exchange of audio. Check out the Akai DPS24. I've
been using it a year for small ensembles and live multitrack
recording. Check out the independent usergroup @
http://p206.ezboard.com/fdpsworldfrm3

Good luck, as always, YMMV.
Rob"

Here's a good read from a couple of members of the Akai board.

http://www.digitalprosound.com/artic...e.jsp?id=26335