Any decent digital portastudios?

[Igor[_2_]]

Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck? I have
a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
this would mainly be for home studio use.

For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...

1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)

2) Is easy to use (straightforward interface, no scrolling through
endless menus to get at basic functions)

3) Is easy to set the levels on (i.e., meters that are easy to read
and interpret)

4) Has decent mic preamps (should be as good as what's on the better
budget compact mixers, e.g. Mackie, A&H, etc).

5) Doesn't use lossy compression

6) Has eight tracks (more is fine, simultaneous recording on all
tracks not a necessity)

7) Can easily transfer audio to/from a computer

I spent some time with one of the Korg portastudios a few years ago (I
believe it was the D1600), and I didn't like it at all. The metering
and the preamps were horrible, and the hard drive and fan were noisy
as hell (though you could turn off the fan during recording).

Prior to that, I had used an excellent digital portastudio, the Yamaha
MD-8, the only drawbacks being that it used lossy compression (ATRAC)
and there was no way to transfer the audio digitally to a computer
(and the MD data discs that it required were a bit pricey and hard to
find).

I'm hoping that since that time, something better has come along.

I'm looking at this portastudio from Tascam, the DP-02CF:
http://www.tascam.com/details;8,16,3581.html

Has anyone used it? Is there anything else I should be looking at?
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 5:34 pm, Igor > wrote:
> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?

No. Portable recorder/mixers aren't really meant for professional
recording. They never were. Though professionals use them for
sketchpads and sometimes make records from their recordings with a
little help from their (mastering) friends. There were a few good ones
a while back, but that was before we knew what good preamps were, we
didn't have great mics for little money, and the target final product
was a demo.

TASCAM knows Portastudios, but they also know that people who buy them
usually don't want to spend a lot of money. What you've found is
pretty typical - minimal metering, functional but not great preamps,
sometimes difficult to operate (though the new TASCAMs are pretty
straightforward).

I have a feeling that you won't be satisfied with anything you can
carry, but if you buy one and learn its strengths and weaknesses, you
might be able to get some usable tracks out of it.

I'd look at user interfaces first, and when you find one that doesn't
require that you carry along a manual the size of the recorder, then
buy one, make some trial recordings, and if you aren't happy with it,
take it back. It's the only way you'll know that you'll be satisfied.

I have a feeling that if you had your Yamaha 8-track Minidisk
workstation today, you wouldn't be very happy with it either.

[Arjan P]

Igor wrote:
> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?

To suck or not to suck is in the eye of the beholder.

> I'm looking at this portastudio from Tascam, the DP-02CF:
> http://www.tascam.com/details;8,16,3581.html
>
> Has anyone used it? Is there anything else I should be looking at?

I was going to say the unit with your specs does not exist, but apart
from the metering you want, this Tascam seems to meet the criteria. I'm
almost sorry I have no need for a Portastudio anymore!

Luck, Arjan

--
--------"If anyone owes it all to Bach, it's God" - Emil Cioran--------
----------------Where I'm from: http://www.soundbyte.nl----------------
--------To email personally go to the website - lower left menu--------

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 5:54 pm, Arjan P > wrote:

> I was going to say the unit with your specs does not exist, but apart
> from the metering you want, this Tascam seems to meet the criteria.

Mic preamps are unknown, but there are only two so if they suck it
won't suck eight times.

[Arjan P]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Dec 17, 5:54 pm, Arjan P > wrote:
>> I was going to say the unit with your specs does not exist, but apart
>> from the metering you want, this Tascam seems to meet the criteria.
>
> Mic preamps are unknown, but there are only two so if they suck it
> won't suck eight times.

Heh heh, that's true. But then, the criterium was 'decent', or to quote:
"should be as good as what's on the better budget compact mixers, e.g.
Mackie, A&H, etc".. I think Tascam usually is up to that standard.

Luck, Arjan

--
--------"If anyone owes it all to Bach, it's God" - Emil Cioran--------
----------------Where I'm from: http://www.soundbyte.nl----------------
--------To email personally go to the website - lower left menu--------

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 6:20 pm, Arjan P > wrote:

> Heh heh, that's true. But then, the criterium was 'decent', or to quote:
> "should be as good as what's on the better budget compact mixers, e.g.
> Mackie, A&H, etc".. I think Tascam usually is up to that standard.

TASCAM has a tendency to go all over the map, as does Mackie, and
probably A&H. The mic inputs on the last TASCAM product I tested, a
US-122, sounded about like the Mackie VLZ-Pro but were a bit noisier.
Nothing that would worry anyone making demos, but probably would be
bothersome if you were recording quiet nature sounds and had a mic
with very low noise. The mic preamps on the TASCAM HD-P2 recorder have
been reported to be pretty good and pretty mediocre. The Mackie Onyx
preamps sound a little better than the VLZ-Pro. The Mackie CFX series
preamps are clearly noisier and dirtier than the VLZ-Pro.

So the criteria is really whether Igor thinks they suck or not, by
however he determines that.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Igor wrote:

> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?

Fostex MR8HD is a neat shoppting bag for carrying things home, albeit with
polarity inversed. Mostly I use an external mic pre, but they are
surviveable and it has a phantom powering capability .... on or all channels
or off (default) on all channels.

> I have
> a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
> up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
> the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
> purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
> can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
> this would mainly be for home studio use.
>
> For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
>
> 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)

MR8HD will record 4 tracks at a time, the CF version only two.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[RichL]

"Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
...
> Igor wrote:
>
> > Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>
> Fostex MR8HD is a neat shoppting bag for carrying things home, albeit with
> polarity inversed. Mostly I use an external mic pre, but they are
> surviveable and it has a phantom powering capability .... on or all
channels
> or off (default) on all channels.
>
> > I have
> > a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
> > up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
> > the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
> > purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
> > can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
> > this would mainly be for home studio use.
> >
> > For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
> >
> > 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)
>
> MR8HD will record 4 tracks at a time, the CF version only two.

I've got an MR8HD I'm not using anymore. I'd be willing to part with it for
a decent price.

[Mark]

On Dec 17, 8:45 pm, "RichL" > wrote:
> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Igor wrote:
>
> > > Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>
> > Fostex MR8HD is a neat shoppting bag for carrying things home, albeit with
> > polarity inversed. Mostly I use an external mic pre, but they are
> > surviveable and it has a phantom powering capability .... on or all
> channels
> > or off (default) on all channels.
>
> > > I have
> > > a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
> > > up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
> > > the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
> > > purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
> > > can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
> > > this would mainly be for home studio use.
>
> > > For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
>
> > > 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)
>
> > MR8HD will record 4 tracks at a time, the CF version only two.
>
> I've got an MR8HD I'm not using anymore. I'd be willing to part with it for
> a decent price.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of reading
about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only to read the
fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks simultaneously.
Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!

At least put it somewhere up in the first 16 paragraphs so I can find
out what it is and what it isn't without having to plow through all
the BS.

Mark

[Six String Stu[_2_]]

"Mark" > wrote in message
...
> On Dec 17, 8:45 pm, "RichL" > wrote:
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Igor wrote:
>>
>> > > Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>>
>> > Fostex MR8HD is a neat shoppting bag for carrying things home, albeit
>> > with
>> > polarity inversed. Mostly I use an external mic pre, but they are
>> > surviveable and it has a phantom powering capability .... on or all
>> channels
>> > or off (default) on all channels.
>>
>> > > I have
>> > > a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to
>> > > set
>> > > up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing
>> > > at
>> > > the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
>> > > purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
>> > > can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter
>> > > and
>> > > this would mainly be for home studio use.
>>
>> > > For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
>>
>> > > 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)
>>
>> > MR8HD will record 4 tracks at a time, the CF version only two.
>>
>> I've got an MR8HD I'm not using anymore. I'd be willing to part with it
>> for
>> a decent price.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of reading
> about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only to read the
> fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks simultaneously.
> Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!
>
> At least put it somewhere up in the first 16 paragraphs so I can find
> out what it is and what it isn't without having to plow through all
> the BS.
>
> Mark
>
lol I agree!
I have the Fostex MR-8 with the CF. I think the biggest card it will take is
a 2 gig card. Granted when it shipped it came with a 256 meg card but I
would've been even more happy if this thing could do more then just two
tracks at a time, then bounce.
Still for what the OP wants I'd say this is ideal. Well a case of AA
batteries and a sack of CF cards would be nice if it's used out at the
campfire.

[Alan[_3_]]

Mark wrote:
> On Dec 17, 8:45 pm, "RichL" > wrote:
>> "Peter Larsen" > wrote in message
>>
>> ...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Igor wrote:
>>>> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>>> Fostex MR8HD is a neat shoppting bag for carrying things home, albeit with
>>> polarity inversed. Mostly I use an external mic pre, but they are
>>> surviveable and it has a phantom powering capability .... on or all
>> channels
>>> or off (default) on all channels.
>>>> I have
>>>> a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
>>>> up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
>>>> the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
>>>> purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
>>>> can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
>>>> this would mainly be for home studio use.
>>>> For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
>>>> 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)
>>> MR8HD will record 4 tracks at a time, the CF version only two.
>> I've got an MR8HD I'm not using anymore. I'd be willing to part with it for
>> a decent price.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of reading
> about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only to read the
> fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks simultaneously.
> Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!
>
> At least put it somewhere up in the first 16 paragraphs so I can find
> out what it is and what it isn't without having to plow through all
> the BS.
>
> Mark
>
Funny, I thought it was just me that saw it that way.

Alan.

[Ian Thompson-Bell]

Mike Rivers wrote:
> On Dec 17, 5:34 pm, Igor > wrote:
>> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>
> No. Portable recorder/mixers aren't really meant for professional
> recording.


The AKAI DPS24 is the exception although it is arguably not very portable.

Ian

[Igor[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:40:46 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>So the criteria is really whether Igor thinks they suck or not, by
>however he determines that.

Yeah, I suppose I could've given a little more detail. I consider the
preamps in the Mackie VLZ-Pro mixers to be decent. Those will
henceforth be the standard for "decent" in this thread.

I'm not an engineer and I frankly couldn't tell you about criteria
(how about, "if it sounds good, it is good"?), but I do know that if a
preamp frequently sounds like it's clipping before it's boosted
signals to a nominal level, it's probably not very good. That's what
the preamps in the Korg were like. The preamps in the Yamaha were
better, and were certainly adequate for what I was doing.

I'm really not that picky, but I do recognize crap when I come across
it and try to avoid it.

Was it naive of me to expect a $300 machine to have decent preamps? If
Mackie can shove four decent preamps into a box that costs $400 (1202
VLZ-Pro), why can't Tascam put two in a box that costs $300?
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Igor[_2_]]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:52:29 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>I have a feeling that if you had your Yamaha 8-track Minidisk
>workstation today, you wouldn't be very happy with it either.

Yeah, maybe nostalgia is clouding my judgement. The nice thing about
that machine was that I was spending more time writing and playing and
being creative than screwing around with equipment. I'd like to go
back to that way of working, even if it means trading off a bit in the
sound quality or flexibility department.

I figure if I find a machine with a good interface but poor preamps, I
could run external preamps through the line ins, though that starts to
defeat the purpose of having a portastudio. Still, it might be less
cumbersome of a setup than a laptop with an external soundcard, mixer,
and control interface.
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 7:20 am, Igor > wrote:

> Yeah, maybe nostalgia is clouding my judgement. The nice thing about
> that machine was that I was spending more time writing and playing and
> being creative than screwing around with equipment. I'd like to go
> back to that way of working, even if it means trading off a bit in the
> sound quality or flexibility department.

Yes, that's what computers have brought us - too much flexibility for
most people, but a great bargain for those who have the time and
patience to learn, and explore odd possibilities instead of getting
basic work done. TASCAM understands this and has always kept a
"cassette-simple" multitrack recorder or few in their line.

Metering is usually pretty skimpy on these, but it works out OK if you
accept that today you're recording 24-bit audio with pretty good A/D
converters and it's no longer necessary, as it was with cassettes and
early 16-bit digital recorders to record at the highest possible level
in order to keep recorder-contributed noise down to a tolerable level.
Find the point where the red light flashes, back off the level a bit
so that it never flashes, and you'll be fine. Flash memory has its
advantages and disadvantages, but I'd rather have a hard disk myself.
New disk drives are pretty quiet and as long as you don't put the
microphone right over the recorder you won't record disk drive noise.
Mic preamps can be so-so, but few are bad enough so that they'd stand
in the way of making a "keeper" recording if everything else is OK.

> I figure if I find a machine with a good interface but poor preamps, I
> could run external preamps through the line ins, though that starts to
> defeat the purpose of having a portastudio.

If you spend enough, you can get a good I/O box for a laptop. The RME
Fireface series has excellent mic preamps and converters. If you use a
Mac, (they don't do Windows) the Metric Halo I/O boxes are top notch,
and I'm told that the new Apogee Duet has very good audio quality. But
laptop computers can be noisy.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Alan wrote:

>> I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of reading
>> about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only to read the
>> fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks simultaneously.
>> Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!

Which is why I mentioned the relevant model up top.

> Funny, I thought it was just me that saw it that way.

You guys were catered for. I put the comments in their context.

> Alan.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 6:29 am, Igor > wrote:

> I'm not an engineer and I frankly couldn't tell you about criteria
> (how about, "if it sounds good, it is good"?), but I do know that if a
> preamp frequently sounds like it's clipping before it's boosted
> signals to a nominal level, it's probably not very good.

Most of the manufacturers have figured this out, at least half way.
They have the internal gains set up so that the output level of the
preamp stage just at its point of clipping produces full scale output
from the A/D converter. So as long as the preamp has ENOUGH gain to
get up to full recording level, you won't have clipping problems. But
of course you still need to set the gain so that you don't get into
clipping. That's usually not a problem with modern designs since few
have more than 60 dB of gain (some have less) and that often isn't
enough to get a quiet source in a "normal" microphone up to full
scale.

Where you need to watch out for clipping is when recording loud
sources. But you no longer have to worry about clipping the input
stage when the meters (which most often display digital peak level)
show a safe level. This was a common problem with a lot of the
portable recorders that have only a digital gain control, after the
input stage and A/D converter.

> Was it naive of me to expect a $300 machine to have decent preamps? If
> Mackie can shove four decent preamps into a box that costs $400 (1202
> VLZ-Pro), why can't Tascam put two in a box that costs $300?

Oh, they probably do, almost. But understand that Mackie has a much
narrower product line than TASCAM, and they can take the same design
that was pretty good more than ten years ago, put modern (and cheaper)
components in it, and it costs them less to build now than it did when
it was new, plus development costs were paid off long ago. TASCAM
designs products differently and it's only been recently that they've
had pretty good preamps.

Also, a lot of their current products, while specified by TASCAM in-
house engineers, are designed by outside sources, so unlike Mackie
where every mixer in a series uses the same preamp, TASCAM products
with mic inputs are likely to have different circuits depending on who
engineered the product. That's not to say that you're likely to get a
bad preamp on a TASCAM unit, it's just that you aren't as sure of what
you're getting as with a Mackie unit. But then Mackie doesn't make
Portastudios (at least not yet).

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 17, 10:07 pm, Mark > wrote:

> I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of reading
> about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only to read the
> fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks simultaneously.
> Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!

But it's an 8-track or 16-track WORKSTATION. That's what they call
them, not 15-track recorders. That's usually in the big print. It's
your brain that's equating "workstation" with "recorder."

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:52:58 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

<snip>

>you're getting as with a Mackie unit. But then Mackie doesn't make
>Portastudios (at least not yet).

He he! Who knows. It may come.

--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 04:40:07 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

<snip>

>
>If you spend enough, you can get a good I/O box for a laptop. The RME
>Fireface series has excellent mic preamps and converters. If you use a
>Mac, (they don't do Windows) the Metric Halo I/O boxes are top notch,
>and I'm told that the new Apogee Duet has very good audio quality. But
>laptop computers can be noisy.

Thanks for the recommendations. BTW, why is it that so many pro
soundcard manufacturers use Firewire instead of USB 2.0 or even the
latest eSATA? USB is more ubiquitous, and eSATA has the fastest data
transfer of them all, so it seems like a strange choice.
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

Igor wrote:

> Thanks for the recommendations. BTW, why is it that so many pro
> soundcard manufacturers use Firewire instead of USB 2.0 or even the
> latest eSATA? USB is more ubiquitous, and eSATA has the fastest data
> transfer of them all, so it seems like a strange choice.

Protocol overhead comes to mind as a possible reason vs. usb2.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[5016]

On Dec 18, 7:20 am, Igor > wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:52:29 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
>
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
> >I have a feeling that if you had your Yamaha 8-track Minidisk
> >workstation today, you wouldn't be very happy with it either.
>
> Yeah, maybe nostalgia is clouding my judgement. The nice thing about
> that machine was that I was spending more time writing and playing and
> being creative than screwing around with equipment. I'd like to go
> back to that way of working, even if it means trading off a bit in the
> sound quality or flexibility department.
>
> I figure if I find a machine with a good interface but poor preamps, I
> could run external preamps through the line ins, though that starts to
> defeat the purpose of having a portastudio. Still, it might be less
> cumbersome of a setup than a laptop with an external soundcard, mixer,
> and control interface.

I have a Korg d3200, which I like a lot. I carry it with an API 3124
and a headphone amplifier in a rackunit, and that gives me enough for
most remote recording. It can record 16 tracks simultaneously and has
8 preamps. The preamps I thought were much better than the Tascam ones
(which a friend of mine has) - cleaner with more gain, and they
tracked much better through their range.

I considered other mobile solutions, but came to the conclusion that
this one was more cost-effective for me. It is inexpensive and gives
me multi-track capability. The quality I get from the API tracks is
very good (I think that most modern A/Ds are acceptable). The Korg
gear is easy to use. I hate all Roland gear apart from synths because
I can never understand the user interfaces.

Previously, I had a pair of Tascam DA38s in a rack case with a bit
splitter. That gave me 8 tracks at 24bit and a bad back. This is a lot
more functional that that in terms of monitoring and soloing etc.

The one limitation that has annoyed me is the limited number of sends
(2) which really constrains the ability to record a band because you
can't create multiple monitor mixes. The only other complaint I have
heard is that the screen is too small. My eyes haven't gone south yet
but in a couple of years that may be a problem.

Don't worry too much about carrying external gear. You generally have
to carry so much other stuff if you are recording a band (stands,
mics. headphone amps) that preamps are neither here nor there.



> --
> "When the words of freedom are used to destroy
> freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
> less than a revolution."
> -- Robert W. Whitaker,http://readbob.com/

[Nick[_5_]]

"Igor" > wrote in message
...
> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck? I have
> a DAW but I would love to have something more portable and easy to set
> up that can nevertheless produce decent recordings for later mixing at
> the computer. I've toyed with the idea of getting a laptop for this
> purpose, but really would prefer a dedicated, all-in-one device if I
> can find one that meets my requirements. I'm a musician/songwriter and
> this would mainly be for home studio use.
>
> For my purposes, I'd be looking for something that...
>
> 1) Is quiet (preferably uses memory cards instead of hard drives)
>
> 2) Is easy to use (straightforward interface, no scrolling through
> endless menus to get at basic functions)
>
> 3) Is easy to set the levels on (i.e., meters that are easy to read
> and interpret)
>
> 4) Has decent mic preamps (should be as good as what's on the better
> budget compact mixers, e.g. Mackie, A&H, etc).
>
> 5) Doesn't use lossy compression
>
> 6) Has eight tracks (more is fine, simultaneous recording on all
> tracks not a necessity)
>
> 7) Can easily transfer audio to/from a computer
>

How about a Zaxcom Deva 5.8?
the only requirement it doesn't do too well on is number 7 - you will need
to bounce it to a firewire drive - you can't go directly to a computer yet.
Oh, and it uses a hard drive, although you can use one of those drive
adaptors and slip a CF card in there if you wish. Very nice preamps.

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 06:17:10 -0800 (PST), 5016 >
wrote:

<snip>

>The Korg gear is easy to use. <snip>

Despite my complaints, I will say that the Korg unit I worked with was
very easy to use compared to competing products.
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:35:58 -0500, "Nick"
> wrote:

>
>How about a Zaxcom Deva 5.8?
>the only requirement it doesn't do too well on is number 7 - you will need
>to bounce it to a firewire drive - you can't go directly to a computer yet.
>Oh, and it uses a hard drive, although you can use one of those drive
>adaptors and slip a CF card in there if you wish. Very nice preamps.
>

Can you do overdubbing on this? I can't tell from the product's
description page:
http://www.zaxcom.com/deva_58.htm

Also, how much does it cost? I'm guessing at least $10,000 just by
looking at it.

--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[[email protected]]

On 2007-12-18 said:
>>> I want to get something off my chest...I am realy tired of
>>>reading about these so called 8 track or 16 track recorders only
>>>to read the fine print to find that they record only 2 tracks
>>>simultaneously. Note to vendors...thats a 2 track recorder!
>Which is why I mentioned the relevant model up top.
>> Funny, I thought it was just me that saw it that way.
>You guys were catered for. I put the comments in their context.
>> Alan.
I was given to believe the Zoom h4 was a four track
simultaneous unit. HOpe so cause that was my plan for a
portable rig for those sessions such as choirs orchestras
etc. that couldn't quite afford the remote truck but wanted
a good recording.
eventually four good mic pres, my good stereo pair and maybe
another pair to capture piano etc. if necessary, or a couple
of spots.

Btw what's monitoring like for those things? THey rive a
set of headphones reasonably well or have some line outs for
analog to listen to the audio you're capturing? Man didn't
have one at the store the other day when I was there hoping
to actually lay hands upon it.


NOte this is only posted to rec.audio.pro, so if you think
my comments/questions are relevant to the other groups feel
free to post your follow-up to all the groups originally
included in this thread.



Richard webb,
Replace anything before the @ symbol with elspider for real
email address.

[Nick[_5_]]

"Igor" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:35:58 -0500, "Nick"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>How about a Zaxcom Deva 5.8?
>>the only requirement it doesn't do too well on is number 7 - you will need
>>to bounce it to a firewire drive - you can't go directly to a computer
>>yet.
>>Oh, and it uses a hard drive, although you can use one of those drive
>>adaptors and slip a CF card in there if you wish. Very nice preamps.
>>
>
> Can you do overdubbing on this? I can't tell from the product's
> description page:
> http://www.zaxcom.com/deva_58.htm
>
> Also, how much does it cost? I'm guessing at least $10,000 just by
> looking at it.
>
> --

no overdubbing.

it costs around $13,000 right now I think.

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 8:45 am, Igor > wrote:

> BTW, why is it that so many pro
> soundcard manufacturers use Firewire instead of USB 2.0 or even the
> latest eSATA? USB is more ubiquitous, and eSATA has the fastest data
> transfer of them all, so it seems like a strange choice.

eSATA wasn't invented soon enough. I think the Firewire craze was a
result of the Macintosh having Firewire first, and lagged with USB.
When they needed more throughput than USB1.1 provided, they went with
Firewire because it was better established than USB2. People don't
like to have to buy an audio interface and then buy a new computer
interface (or new computer) in order to connect it.

[Kevin T]

On Dec 18, 6:15 am, Ian Thompson-Bell > wrote:
> Mike Rivers wrote:
> > On Dec 17, 5:34 pm, Igor > wrote:
> >> Can someone recommend a digital portastudio that doesn't suck?
>
> > No. Portable recorder/mixers aren't really meant for professional
> > recording.
>
> The AKAI DPS24 is the exception although it is arguably not very portable.
>
> Ian

Funny you mention the DSP24 I'm just now in process of helping a MUSO
friend learn how to use his. I'm pretty impressed so far as its
nothing likr the Roland I / Yamaha etc I've seen before.

Kevin T

[anahata]

Igor wrote:

> Was it naive of me to expect a $300 machine to have decent preamps?

Optimistic might be a kinder way of putting it :-)

> If
> Mackie can shove four decent preamps into a box that costs $400 (1202
> VLZ-Pro), why can't Tascam put two in a box that costs $300?

The VLZ-Pro is unusual in terms of preamp quality for money.

But why not get both?
I use a Yamaha AW16G (and the newer version, the AW1600 is a very nice
upgrade and worth considering, by the way) but the mic pres are rubbish
and only the 1st two channels (of 8) are XLR's with P48.

So I have a DAV BG1 in front on the 1st 2 channels and 6 inputs of a
Soundcraft mixer on the next 6. It's not so portable, but I have taken
the whole combination away from home to record elsewhere.

You are limiting yourself to the low end of the market by insisting on
solid state memory. Modern hard disks are easily quiet enough for the
job and have far more capacity, also the speed limitations of flash
cards are a reason why they won't record many channels at once, as
writing to flash is far slower than reading it.

--
Anahata
-+- http://www.treewind.co.uk
Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 09:41:30 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

>
>eSATA wasn't invented soon enough. I think the Firewire craze was a
>result of the Macintosh having Firewire first, and lagged with USB.
>When they needed more throughput than USB1.1 provided, they went with
>Firewire because it was better established than USB2. People don't
>like to have to buy an audio interface and then buy a new computer
>interface (or new computer) in order to connect it.

Strangely, this is precisely the reason why I would hesitate to buy a
Firewire interface at this point in time.

I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
laptops. Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
on the market that call for Firewire. eSATA is the future, and USB 2.0
probably has a good 10 years left in it, but Firewire looks like it
may already be on the way out.
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:42:00 +0000, anahata >
wrote:

>Igor wrote:
>
>> Was it naive of me to expect a $300 machine to have decent preamps?
>
>Optimistic might be a kinder way of putting it :-)
>
>> If
>> Mackie can shove four decent preamps into a box that costs $400 (1202
>> VLZ-Pro), why can't Tascam put two in a box that costs $300?
>
>The VLZ-Pro is unusual in terms of preamp quality for money.
>
>But why not get both?
>I use a Yamaha AW16G (and the newer version, the AW1600 is a very nice
>upgrade and worth considering, by the way) but the mic pres are rubbish
>and only the 1st two channels (of 8) are XLR's with P48.
>
>So I have a DAV BG1 in front on the 1st 2 channels and 6 inputs of a
>Soundcraft mixer on the next 6. It's not so portable, but I have taken
>the whole combination away from home to record elsewhere.
>
>You are limiting yourself to the low end of the market by insisting on
>solid state memory. Modern hard disks are easily quiet enough for the
>job and have far more capacity, also the speed limitations of flash
>cards are a reason why they won't record many channels at once, as
>writing to flash is far slower than reading it.

Thanks for the advice, and I'll check out the Yamaha units you mention
(I've always had mixed feelings about Yamaha, as I have really liked
some of their products, like the MD-8, and others I have found
frustratingly difficult to use, like some of their digital synths and
effects processors).

I'm not too concerned about the limited capacity of memory cards, as
it's no big deal to just dump the recordings to a computer and erase
the card for re-use. I'm now seeing 4 GB cards in stores for
reasonable prices; considering the hard drive in my first PC was 2 GB,
and the first computer I did audio on (a Mac) had a 500 MB hard drive,
I can get by with 4 GB.
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:56:03 -0500, Igor >
wrote:

>I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
>and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
>laptops. Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
>on the market that call for Firewire.

Just every dv camera.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Igor" > wrote in message
...

>
> I'm not too concerned about the limited capacity of memory cards, as
> it's no big deal to just dump the recordings to a computer and erase
> the card for re-use. I'm now seeing 4 GB cards in stores for
> reasonable prices; considering the hard drive in my first PC was 2 GB,
> and the first computer I did audio on (a Mac) had a 500 MB hard drive,
> I can get by with 4 GB.

My first computer had NO hard drive but it had "twin" 256k floppy drives! My
first computer with a hard drive had a full 20MB hard drive but with
compression technology you could fool the computer into thinking it was
30MB's!

Now Eric Toline is gonna chime in and start talking about punch cards and
wire recorders!

Charlie

[Mike Rivers]

On Dec 18, 6:56 pm, Igor > wrote:

> I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
> and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
> laptops.

Well, you see, that's your problem. The biggest application for
Firewire seems to be getting video from digital movie cameras to Mac
computers. Some PC laptops have Firewire ports, but very few PC
motherboards do.

> Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
> on the market that call for Firewire.

You're not a video guy, I guess.

> eSATA is the future, and USB 2.0
> probably has a good 10 years left in it, but Firewire looks like it
> may already be on the way out

USB will be around for a while because it's used for keyboards, mice,
and printers. When there are eSATA ports on video cameras, it will be
more popular on computers. Right now, there are a few external disk
drives that use it, a lot of external drives that use USB2, and
external Firewire drives seem to be kind of like SCSI drives - those
really, really in the know use them, for everyone else they're too
expensive.

Dan Lavry (who makes really good A/D and D/A converters) takes a very
dim view of Firewire as a way to carry audio data. He claims that
there are timing problems that can cause random phase shifts between
tracks - irrelevant if tracks are recorded one at a time, but
significant with live or stereo tracks.

[Arny Krueger]

"Charles Tomaras" > wrote in message

> "Igor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>> I'm not too concerned about the limited capacity of
>> memory cards, as it's no big deal to just dump the
>> recordings to a computer and erase the card for re-use.
>> I'm now seeing 4 GB cards in stores for reasonable
>> prices; considering the hard drive in my first PC was 2
>> GB, and the first computer I did audio on (a Mac) had a
>> 500 MB hard drive, I can get by with 4 GB.
>
> My first computer had NO hard drive but it had "twin"
> 256k floppy drives!

I thought that 160 (single side) and 320K (double side) were the standard
size for standard density 5 1/4 floppies.

> My first computer with a hard drive
> had a full 20MB hard drive but with compression
> technology you could fool the computer into thinking it
> was 30MB's!

My first hard drive was a Seagate ST 4026 - 20 megabytes formatted for DOS,

> Now Eric Toline is gonna chime in and start talking about
> punch cards and wire recorders!

I definately had my fill of punched cards. I personally punched zillions of
them. Wire recorders were still being used when I was a boy.

[Charles Tomaras]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Charles Tomaras" > wrote in message
>
>> "Igor" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>
>>> I'm not too concerned about the limited capacity of
>>> memory cards, as it's no big deal to just dump the
>>> recordings to a computer and erase the card for re-use.
>>> I'm now seeing 4 GB cards in stores for reasonable
>>> prices; considering the hard drive in my first PC was 2
>>> GB, and the first computer I did audio on (a Mac) had a
>>> 500 MB hard drive, I can get by with 4 GB.
>>
>> My first computer had NO hard drive but it had "twin"
>> 256k floppy drives!
>
> I thought that 160 (single side) and 320K (double side) were the standard
> size for standard density 5 1/4 floppies.

You're correct Arne. Here's a link to my first computer:
http://www.vintage-computer.com/compaq_portable.shtml

[Igor[_2_]]

On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:02:31 +0000, Laurence Payne
<NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:56:03 -0500, Igor >
>wrote:
>
>>I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
>>and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
>>laptops. Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
>>on the market that call for Firewire.
>
>Just every dv camera.

Are you sure about that? I bought a Sony DV camera for a relative
about 6 months ago and I'm pretty sure it had a USB rather than a
Firewire connection.

--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Scott Dorsey]

Charles Tomaras > wrote:
>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
>>
>> I thought that 160 (single side) and 320K (double side) were the standard
>> size for standard density 5 1/4 floppies.
>
>You're correct Arne. Here's a link to my first computer:
>http://www.vintage-computer.com/compaq_portable.shtml

The problem with the 5 1/4" drive was that there WAS NO standard for the
damn thing. You could format a drive on a Kaypro and not be able to read
it on a Morrow Micro Decision or an Osborne. Every manufacturer had their
own format and you needed a translation utility in order to be able to copy
disks from other machines, even running the same operating system.

It was a sad state of affairs, and it's why a lot of folks kept running 8"
disks well into the age when they should have been obsolete; there was a
standard IBM format for the 8" drives and all the CP/M systems used it so
there was good interchange between drives.

Whereas in the 5 1/4" world, nobody could even decide between soft and hard
sectoring, let alone actual format.

When the IBM PC came out, folks made fun of it because it didn't have regular
8" drives, only ANOTHER annoyingly nonstandard 5 1/4" format. Funny thing,
the FAT-8 filesystem eventually became an industry standard....
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:46:01 -0800 (PST), Mike Rivers
> wrote:

>On Dec 18, 6:56 pm, Igor > wrote:
>
>> I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
>> and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
>> laptops.
>
>Well, you see, that's your problem. The biggest application for
>Firewire seems to be getting video from digital movie cameras to Mac
>computers. Some PC laptops have Firewire ports, but very few PC
>motherboards do.
>

So I've noticed. Adding Firewire to a PC is no big deal, it's just a
$20 add-on card, but it goes back to your comment about people not
liking "to have to buy an audio interface and then buy a new computer
interface in order to connect it."

>> Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
>> on the market that call for Firewire.
>
>You're not a video guy, I guess.
>

Nope, though as I mentioned in another post, I did buy a digital
camcorder for a family member several months ago and I don't remember
having seen a Firewire port on it. I think it used USB.

>> eSATA is the future, and USB 2.0
>> probably has a good 10 years left in it, but Firewire looks like it
>> may already be on the way out
>
>USB will be around for a while because it's used for keyboards, mice,
>and printers. When there are eSATA ports on video cameras, it will be
>more popular on computers. Right now, there are a few external disk
>drives that use it, a lot of external drives that use USB2, and
>external Firewire drives seem to be kind of like SCSI drives - those
>really, really in the know use them, for everyone else they're too
>expensive.
>

The last time I went to a big box store, I remember seeing external
hard drives that gave you a choice of all three -- USB, Firewire, and
eSATA -- on the same unit. These weren't noticeably more expensive
than models that gave you less options. I don't remember the specific
brand names, but they were probably made by Seagate or Western
Digital.

Anyways, I don't know what's going on in the world of Macs, but in the
world of PCs, I'm seeing definite signs of eSATA being the next
standard, and Firewire doesn't seem to have taken off.

>Dan Lavry (who makes really good A/D and D/A converters) takes a very
>dim view of Firewire as a way to carry audio data. He claims that
>there are timing problems that can cause random phase shifts between
>tracks - irrelevant if tracks are recorded one at a time, but
>significant with live or stereo tracks.

What does he suggest would be a better protocol?
--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Martin Harrington]

This was my first computer....

http://www.vintage-computer.com/sinclair_zx81.shtml

Martin Harrington

On 19/12/07 2:08 PM, in article
, "Charles Tomaras"
> wrote:

>
>
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> "Charles Tomaras" > wrote in message
>>
>>> "Igor" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm not too concerned about the limited capacity of
>>>> memory cards, as it's no big deal to just dump the
>>>> recordings to a computer and erase the card for re-use.
>>>> I'm now seeing 4 GB cards in stores for reasonable
>>>> prices; considering the hard drive in my first PC was 2
>>>> GB, and the first computer I did audio on (a Mac) had a
>>>> 500 MB hard drive, I can get by with 4 GB.
>>>
>>> My first computer had NO hard drive but it had "twin"
>>> 256k floppy drives!
>>
>> I thought that 160 (single side) and 320K (double side) were the standard
>> size for standard density 5 1/4 floppies.
>
> You're correct Arne. Here's a link to my first computer:
> http://www.vintage-computer.com/compaq_portable.shtml
>
>
>

Martin Harrington

[Igor[_2_]]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:15:25 -0500, Igor >
wrote:

>On Wed, 19 Dec 2007 01:02:31 +0000, Laurence Payne
><NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:56:03 -0500, Igor >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>I've been shopping around for a motherboard (I'm a PC, not a Mac, guy)
>>>and there are surprisingly few that have Firewire. It's the same with
>>>laptops. Apart from pro audio cards, I don't see a lot of peripherals
>>>on the market that call for Firewire.
>>
>>Just every dv camera.
>
>Are you sure about that? I bought a Sony DV camera for a relative
>about 6 months ago and I'm pretty sure it had a USB rather than a
>Firewire connection.

Oops! Totally wrong about that. I found an old receipt with the model
number and looked it up. It does indeed use Firewire.

--
"When the words of freedom are used to destroy
freedom, it's time for a revolution, and nothing
less than a revolution."
-- Robert W. Whitaker, http://readbob.com/

[Laurence Payne]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:15:25 -0500, Igor >
wrote:

>>Just every dv camera.
>
>Are you sure about that? I bought a Sony DV camera for a relative
>about 6 months ago and I'm pretty sure it had a USB rather than a
>Firewire connection.

Want to check that? Maybe it had USB as well, for a still picture
function. There are always exceptions, but I'd be very surprised if a
Sony, of all brands, didn't transfer dv by Firewire.

[Arny Krueger]

"Laurence Payne" <NOSPAMlpayne1ATdsl.pipex.com> wrote in
message
> On Tue, 18 Dec 2007 22:15:25 -0500, Igor
> > wrote:
>
>>> Just every dv camera.
>>
>> Are you sure about that? I bought a Sony DV camera for a
>> relative about 6 months ago and I'm pretty sure it had a
>> USB rather than a Firewire connection.
>
> Want to check that? Maybe it had USB as well, for a
> still picture function. There are always exceptions, but
> I'd be very surprised if a Sony, of all brands, didn't
> transfer dv by Firewire.

Agreed. Furthermore, there are some internal situations with USB transfers
that keep them from working with some popular video editing software. When I
do a transfer from a DV camera, I hope there's a firewire port.

[John Lamp]

Arny Krueger wrote:
>
> I thought that 160 (single side) and 320K (double side) were the standard
> size for standard density 5 1/4 floppies.

Only after IBM came onto the scene. First 5.25 I used was 100kb SS, and
later 308kb SS quad density (Exidy Sorcerer rules!).

Cheers
John

[John Lamp]

Martin Harrington wrote:

> This was my first computer....
>
> http://www.vintage-computer.com/sinclair_zx81.shtml

My first the Elliott 503. Not that I actually owned it!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliott_Brothers_%28computer_company%29

Cheers
John