HWBossHoss
May 23rd 04, 04:35 AM
OK, I am going to be upgrading my home studio, and I want to get some opinions.
The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
EQ's.
Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I can
use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I wonder
if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
"processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
reflection on ProTools itself.
Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
all possible! :-)
There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?
The way I see it, there are two basic choices: computer-based recording (such
as ProTools) and what I call "box" recording (any of the self-contained digital
recorders from Korg, Roland, Tascam, etc.). I want to know the pros and cons
of both methods. I am willing to make a genuine investment into whichever
method I can decide will give me the most performance for the buck.
I will say that I am kind of an "old school" home recordist who likes to fiddle
with actual sound processors instead of software plug-ins. My compressors are
two FMR Audio RNC 1773's (for everything) and a dbx 1066 (mainly for drums). I
have a Lexicon MPX-1 and a junky old Alesis Midiverb III for effects. At the
moment, my mic preamps are supplied by the "ghost" type preamps in my
Soundcraft Spirit M8 mixer, but I am looking into units by Focusrite and
Avalon. I plan to add some kind of EQ capability as soon as I can decide what
the best EQ is for me. Hell, I've even considered one of the Alesis digital
EQ's.
Anyway, down to business: As you may already be able to tell, I'm leaning
toward the digital recorder method. One of the biggest reasons for this is
simple: I just do not understand a lot of what is involved in computer-based
recording. (Firewire? Huh? Exeternal A/D converters? Needed or not? Sound
card? Needed or not? The list goes on...)
Lots of folks are buying the Digidesign Digi 002 Protools rig, and the way they
strut around, convinced that they have the "ultimate" home recording rig leads
me to believe that they must be on to something....but I'm wondering if I can
use my beloved "old fashioned" sound processors with such a rig...AND I wonder
if buying a Digidesign rig AUTOMATICALLY means that it is "better" than a
dedicated digital recorder in terms of sound quality, flexibility, and ease of
use. A lot of what I've heard from the ProTools method sounds way too
"processed" and flat, but that could just be "operator error" and not a
reflection on ProTools itself.
Another big factor regarding the computer-based method is this: I'm pretty sure
that I will need to buy a better computer than what I already have in order to
use ProTools effectively. That will be a considerable expense, I'm sure. And
I would rather use that money to buy microphones and other "fun" stuff if at
all possible! :-)
There you have it. I have only scratched the surface when it comes to the
sheer volume of questions I have about both methods of recording, but I hope
you get the general idea of what is confusing me. I guess my question is
really this: Can someone give me some DEFINITE, CONCRETE reasons why
computer-based recording is "better" than using a dedicated digital recorder
along with some high-quality outboard sound processors?