Portable multitrack vs PC Sequencer

[Jenna]

You'll have to forgive me; I've been out of the loop for a long, long
time, and am just tentatively getting back into home recording. To
give you an idea how out of touch... the last recordings I made were
on 16 track analog reel to reel.

My decision is simply whether to go with a portable multitrack like
the Zoom 1266CD, or to go down the Sequencer/Midi/PC route.

Here are what seem the relevant considerations, to me.

I record about equal parts synths and guitar (acoustic). Portability
is not an issue, as I am disabled now and basically housebound. Also
have bad tinnitus and hyperacusis, so am not going to be lugging a
multitrack to jam sessions or gigs like I used to in the 80's...

I have never used MIDI. Yes - it's true. Gasp! When I first learned
synth, storing a preset meant writing down the knob positions on a bit
of paper :)
From what I have learned of it over the years in dribs and drabs, it
seems to me that a lot of the functionality of midi would be fairly
redundant to me, particularly since some of my synths are pre-midi
anyway.

I am used to multitracks, whereas I would have to learn a whole new
language to use a PC based system. However the standalone cost of a
multitrack concerns me, as does the prospect of it not being
upgradable.

OTOH, my computer isn't going to be fast enough to be functional as a
recording medium - particularly since if I AM going to go down that
route, I'd probably want to get into softsynths, and latency would be
a big issue.

So I would probably have to end up spending roughly the same amount to
either get a decent multitrack, or to get a fast enough PC plus
software.

I am not a real tech-head. By that I mean that I am not fascinated by
technology for its own sake; just as a medium to record music. I'm
very much an organic, plug it in, and play it live composer. I'm
not Steve Lilywhite. OTOH I'm not a luddite, and don't want to be
scared off a more sensible medium simply because I'm not acquainted
with it yet.

Suggestions welcome.

J.

[Dik LeDoux]

"Jenna" > wrote in message
om...
> I am not a real tech-head. By that I mean that I am not fascinated by
> technology for its own sake; just as a medium to record music. I'm
> very much an organic, plug it in, and play it live composer. I'm
> not Steve Lilywhite. OTOH I'm not a luddite, and don't want to be
> scared off a more sensible medium simply because I'm not acquainted
> with it yet.

Then your decision should be based on User Interface, whether or not you can
get enough tracks for your material with a multitrack hardware box, and
whether or not you're interested in signal processing and editing ease after
you track.

IMO The biggest downside to using a multitrack box is that your edit options
on the low-end machines are limited. Another problem is that dealing with
goofy menus and key combinations to use things like "virtual tracks" and
stuff may be more hassle than using a PC to record. But there are probably
some multitrack boxes out there that:
- Have a decent enough display and menu system to be user-friendly
- Include enough signal processing (eq, verb, compression, etc.) to meet
your needs.

You can learn the ins and outs of setting up a PC as a recording box - but
it isn't for the tech-newbie. But there are places that will build you a PC
DAW and pre-install software if you're going to spend that kind of money.
If you go this route, you'll have a PC that'll kick a multitrack box's ASS,
it'll be easy to use at that point, and you'll have options for upgrading
hardware, options for working in different ways (looping, MIDI, soft synths,
etc.).

My .02

dik

[Dik LeDoux]

"Jenna" > wrote in message
om...
> I am not a real tech-head. By that I mean that I am not fascinated by
> technology for its own sake; just as a medium to record music. I'm
> very much an organic, plug it in, and play it live composer. I'm
> not Steve Lilywhite. OTOH I'm not a luddite, and don't want to be
> scared off a more sensible medium simply because I'm not acquainted
> with it yet.

Then your decision should be based on User Interface, whether or not you can
get enough tracks for your material with a multitrack hardware box, and
whether or not you're interested in signal processing and editing ease after
you track.

IMO The biggest downside to using a multitrack box is that your edit options
on the low-end machines are limited. Another problem is that dealing with
goofy menus and key combinations to use things like "virtual tracks" and
stuff may be more hassle than using a PC to record. But there are probably
some multitrack boxes out there that:
- Have a decent enough display and menu system to be user-friendly
- Include enough signal processing (eq, verb, compression, etc.) to meet
your needs.

You can learn the ins and outs of setting up a PC as a recording box - but
it isn't for the tech-newbie. But there are places that will build you a PC
DAW and pre-install software if you're going to spend that kind of money.
If you go this route, you'll have a PC that'll kick a multitrack box's ASS,
it'll be easy to use at that point, and you'll have options for upgrading
hardware, options for working in different ways (looping, MIDI, soft synths,
etc.).

My .02

dik

[Les Cargill]

Jenna wrote:
>
> You'll have to forgive me; I've been out of the loop for a long, long
> time, and am just tentatively getting back into home recording. To
> give you an idea how out of touch... the last recordings I made were
> on 16 track analog reel to reel.
>
> My decision is simply whether to go with a portable multitrack like
> the Zoom 1266CD, or to go down the Sequencer/Midi/PC route.
>
> Here are what seem the relevant considerations, to me.
>
> I record about equal parts synths and guitar (acoustic). Portability
> is not an issue, as I am disabled now and basically housebound.

I'd disagree - especially for acoustic guitar. You could have
specifically built spaces for tracking, so I'd be wrong then, but
in a house, recording acoustic guitar means you'll need a very low
noise space. If you're operating the transport and playing, this
is a consideration.

> Also
> have bad tinnitus and hyperacusis, so am not going to be lugging a
> multitrack to jam sessions or gigs like I used to in the 80's...
>
> I have never used MIDI. Yes - it's true. Gasp! When I first learned
> synth, storing a preset meant writing down the knob positions on a bit
> of paper :)
> From what I have learned of it over the years in dribs and drabs, it
> seems to me that a lot of the functionality of midi would be fairly
> redundant to me, particularly since some of my synths are pre-midi
> anyway.
>
> I am used to multitracks, whereas I would have to learn a whole new
> language to use a PC based system. However the standalone cost of a
> multitrack concerns me, as does the prospect of it not being
> upgradable.
>

I don't think the learning curve for most PC daws is that steep.

> OTOH, my computer isn't going to be fast enough to be functional as a
> recording medium - particularly since if I AM going to go down that
> route, I'd probably want to get into softsynths, and latency would be
> a big issue.
>

With softsynths, my understanding is that you eventually 'render' the
final tracks. My guess is you'd probably need some sort of ROMpler to
get the tracks in MIDI form, then render 'em.

> So I would probably have to end up spending roughly the same amount to
> either get a decent multitrack, or to get a fast enough PC plus
> software.
>
> I am not a real tech-head. By that I mean that I am not fascinated by
> technology for its own sake; just as a medium to record music. I'm
> very much an organic, plug it in, and play it live composer. I'm
> not Steve Lilywhite. OTOH I'm not a luddite, and don't want to be
> scared off a more sensible medium simply because I'm not acquainted
> with it yet.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> J.


--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill]

Jenna wrote:
>
> You'll have to forgive me; I've been out of the loop for a long, long
> time, and am just tentatively getting back into home recording. To
> give you an idea how out of touch... the last recordings I made were
> on 16 track analog reel to reel.
>
> My decision is simply whether to go with a portable multitrack like
> the Zoom 1266CD, or to go down the Sequencer/Midi/PC route.
>
> Here are what seem the relevant considerations, to me.
>
> I record about equal parts synths and guitar (acoustic). Portability
> is not an issue, as I am disabled now and basically housebound.

I'd disagree - especially for acoustic guitar. You could have
specifically built spaces for tracking, so I'd be wrong then, but
in a house, recording acoustic guitar means you'll need a very low
noise space. If you're operating the transport and playing, this
is a consideration.

> Also
> have bad tinnitus and hyperacusis, so am not going to be lugging a
> multitrack to jam sessions or gigs like I used to in the 80's...
>
> I have never used MIDI. Yes - it's true. Gasp! When I first learned
> synth, storing a preset meant writing down the knob positions on a bit
> of paper :)
> From what I have learned of it over the years in dribs and drabs, it
> seems to me that a lot of the functionality of midi would be fairly
> redundant to me, particularly since some of my synths are pre-midi
> anyway.
>
> I am used to multitracks, whereas I would have to learn a whole new
> language to use a PC based system. However the standalone cost of a
> multitrack concerns me, as does the prospect of it not being
> upgradable.
>

I don't think the learning curve for most PC daws is that steep.

> OTOH, my computer isn't going to be fast enough to be functional as a
> recording medium - particularly since if I AM going to go down that
> route, I'd probably want to get into softsynths, and latency would be
> a big issue.
>

With softsynths, my understanding is that you eventually 'render' the
final tracks. My guess is you'd probably need some sort of ROMpler to
get the tracks in MIDI form, then render 'em.

> So I would probably have to end up spending roughly the same amount to
> either get a decent multitrack, or to get a fast enough PC plus
> software.
>
> I am not a real tech-head. By that I mean that I am not fascinated by
> technology for its own sake; just as a medium to record music. I'm
> very much an organic, plug it in, and play it live composer. I'm
> not Steve Lilywhite. OTOH I'm not a luddite, and don't want to be
> scared off a more sensible medium simply because I'm not acquainted
> with it yet.
>
> Suggestions welcome.
>
> J.


--
Les Cargill

[Jenna]

Thanks for the followups. I installed a cheap sequencer yesterday...
Cakewalk's Music Creator - and quickly realized something: I'm
probably hardly going to be using MIDI at all. Both the synths I have
at the moment are monotimbral, and one (a Jupiter) isnt even Midi
capable at all. The vx plus gtr are going to be digital audio, so now
it seems to me we're really talking about which is the better way of
recording digital audio. The multitrack I was considering (Zoom
1266CD) has a 20 gig HD, which is bigger than the computer's anyway -
though I suppose I would have to basically buy a new compyuter if I
decided to go down that route, so the cost would be about the same.

At the moment the only thing which is swinging me towards the computer
option is the easier editing (no matter how logical a menu system is,
it's not going to be as easy to do on a little LCD screen), and the
possibility that one day I might have a use for MIDI even if I don't
at the moment.

Les Cargill > wrote in message
> > I record about equal parts synths and guitar (acoustic). Portability
> > is not an issue, as I am disabled now and basically housebound.
>
> I'd disagree - especially for acoustic guitar. You could have
> specifically built spaces for tracking, so I'd be wrong then, but
> in a house, recording acoustic guitar means you'll need a very low
> noise space. If you're operating the transport and playing, this
> is a consideration.

What transport do you mean? It's a digital HD recorder. It's not going
to be noisier than a PC with three fans running, is it?

Actually - possibly sacrilege here, I'm sorry - but I'm really not
very fussy about a bit of background noise. I think I'm a bit of a
medium-fi artist :) Actually someone asked to remaster all my oldest
4 track songs onto CD, and he rolled off the tape hiss. I asked him to
put it back! :)


> With softsynths, my understanding is that you eventually 'render' the
> final tracks. My guess is you'd probably need some sort of ROMpler to
> get the tracks in MIDI form, then render 'em.

Well, you'd need a MIDI keyboard. I don;t think you need any samples
other than the software ones in the plug-in.

Thanks again for the feedback.

J.

[Jenna]

Thanks for the followups. I installed a cheap sequencer yesterday...
Cakewalk's Music Creator - and quickly realized something: I'm
probably hardly going to be using MIDI at all. Both the synths I have
at the moment are monotimbral, and one (a Jupiter) isnt even Midi
capable at all. The vx plus gtr are going to be digital audio, so now
it seems to me we're really talking about which is the better way of
recording digital audio. The multitrack I was considering (Zoom
1266CD) has a 20 gig HD, which is bigger than the computer's anyway -
though I suppose I would have to basically buy a new compyuter if I
decided to go down that route, so the cost would be about the same.

At the moment the only thing which is swinging me towards the computer
option is the easier editing (no matter how logical a menu system is,
it's not going to be as easy to do on a little LCD screen), and the
possibility that one day I might have a use for MIDI even if I don't
at the moment.

Les Cargill > wrote in message
> > I record about equal parts synths and guitar (acoustic). Portability
> > is not an issue, as I am disabled now and basically housebound.
>
> I'd disagree - especially for acoustic guitar. You could have
> specifically built spaces for tracking, so I'd be wrong then, but
> in a house, recording acoustic guitar means you'll need a very low
> noise space. If you're operating the transport and playing, this
> is a consideration.

What transport do you mean? It's a digital HD recorder. It's not going
to be noisier than a PC with three fans running, is it?

Actually - possibly sacrilege here, I'm sorry - but I'm really not
very fussy about a bit of background noise. I think I'm a bit of a
medium-fi artist :) Actually someone asked to remaster all my oldest
4 track songs onto CD, and he rolled off the tape hiss. I asked him to
put it back! :)


> With softsynths, my understanding is that you eventually 'render' the
> final tracks. My guess is you'd probably need some sort of ROMpler to
> get the tracks in MIDI form, then render 'em.

Well, you'd need a MIDI keyboard. I don;t think you need any samples
other than the software ones in the plug-in.

Thanks again for the feedback.

J.