[just bob]

I researched this for someone about a year ago and the problem with the
lower end units for about $100-200 was they were pretty slow and there was
often a delay when monitoring the tracks.

I friend wants one to record himself playing acoustic guitar and mandolin
and I was thinking he probably does not need the monitoring so in that case
just a decent device with 1/4" and one XLR inputs with decent multi-tracking
software. If the devices are all about the same is one software better than
another? What brands do you like? Edirol, M-Audio, Lexicon, others?

Many thanks for your help.

[Peter Larsen[_2_]]

just bob wrote:

I researched this for someone about a year ago and the problem with
the lower end units for about $100-200 was they were pretty slow and
there was often a delay when monitoring the tracks.

I friend wants one to record himself playing acoustic guitar and
mandolin and I was thinking he probably does not need the monitoring
so in that case just a decent device with 1/4" and one XLR inputs
with decent multi-tracking software. If the devices are all about
the same is one software better than another? What brands do you
like? Edirol, M-Audio, Lexicon, others?

E-mu seems to offer most software. That said, in my opinion the strategy is
broken. Look for an interface that fits and some software that fits, if it
happens to come in a usable version with the interface, fine, but don't make
that define the choice.

Many of the products you find mentioned in this newsgroup has functional
demos.

Many thanks for your help.


Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 14, 5:33 pm, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:
I researched this for someone about a year ago and the problem with the
lower end units for about $100-200 was they were pretty slow and there was
often a delay when monitoring the tracks.

Slow? No. Delay, yes, but this isn't limited to low priced
interfaces.

I friend wants one to record himself playing acoustic guitar and mandolin
and I was thinking he probably does not need the monitoring so in that case
just a decent device with 1/4" and one XLR inputs with decent multi-tracking
software.

Everybody wants to monitor themselves. I'd recommend the TASCAM US122.
It has a true hardware monitor so there's no delay from the mic or
line input and headphone of monitor output. And it sounds pretty good.
I believe it still ships with a "light" version of Cubase, which is a
fairly common program.

You don't seem to know much about this (computer) approach to
recording. I'll warn you that it is not nearly as easy or
straightforward as using a tape recorder. You can do a lot more with a
computer, but you have to get some fundamentals straight that aren't
intuitive to many people.

[D C[_2_]]

Mike Rivers wrote:

You don't seem to know much about this (computer) approach to
recording. I'll warn you that it is not nearly as easy or
straightforward as using a tape recorder. You can do a lot more with a
computer, but you have to get some fundamentals straight that aren't
intuitive to many people.


You've got to build one first. ; )

[Tobiah]

decent multi-tracking
software.

Often discussed here, the n-track software has quite impressive
capability, yet many would be able to perform casual multitrack
recording in minutes without consulting the manual. It's not
free, but the price is quite fair, and it comes with pretty
impressive technical support.

What's that other nag-ware program that was mentioned here
recently? If one can stand the usual 'register' chiding, I
believe that it can be used indefinitely for no money. I
think the name started with an 'R'.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[just bob]

"Mike Rivers" wrote in message
...
On Jan 14, 5:33 pm, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:
I researched this for someone about a year ago and the problem with the
lower end units for about $100-200 was they were pretty slow and there
was
often a delay when monitoring the tracks.

Slow? No. Delay, yes, but this isn't limited to low priced
interfaces.

I friend wants one to record himself playing acoustic guitar and mandolin
and I was thinking he probably does not need the monitoring so in that
case
just a decent device with 1/4" and one XLR inputs with decent
multi-tracking
software.

Everybody wants to monitor themselves. I'd recommend the TASCAM US122.
It has a true hardware monitor so there's no delay from the mic or
line input and headphone of monitor output. And it sounds pretty good.
I believe it still ships with a "light" version of Cubase, which is a
fairly common program.

You don't seem to know much about this (computer) approach to
recording. I'll warn you that it is not nearly as easy or
straightforward as using a tape recorder. You can do a lot more with a
computer, but you have to get some fundamentals straight that aren't
intuitive to many people.

Mike I have been out of the game since Cakewalk 3(?) running probably on
Windows98 and it was a lot more work back then. Plugins were a joke! I had a
ton of outboard gear and use to trigger a old ProteusX I think it was. I was
a bass player who did a little composing before I became a full blown
computer geek and decided to build a DAW and do some sequencing. I was using
a Muto interface at the time on a PCI card and there was no latency with the
monitoring so I assumed the reason we have the monitoring delay today is
because of the USB interface.

Thanks for the suggestion. I just did a little research on this Tascam and I
see some ebay listings for the "L" version. See item 280190119295. Should I
go for it?

[Mike Rivers]

On Jan 16, 12:49 am, "just bob" kilbyfan@aoldotcom wrote:

Muto interface on a PCI card - and there was no latency with the
monitoring so I assumed the reason we have the monitoring delay today is
because of the USB interface.

There was a little latency, but only the amount contributed by the A/D
and D/A converters. Newer, cheaper, and simpler USB (and Firewire and
PCI too) interfaces let the computer do all the work so the audio
needs to make a longer trip through the driver and computer so latency
is now long enough to be obvious. Some of the latest interfaces with
"zero" (only for large values of zero) or "low" latency monitoring use
a DSP chip in the interface to turn the audio around. It's faster than
going through the computer path, but it still takes a little more
time.

I just did a little research on this Tascam and I
see some ebay listings for the "L" version. See item 280190119295. Should I
go for it?

Sure, if it otherwise meets your needs. The L is the latest version of
the original model and adds the option of 96 kHz sample rate.

The reason why the TASCAM US122 has true no latency monitoring of the
input is because there's a little analog mixer in there, and a switch
that sends the preamp output to this mixer and out the headphone and
monitor output jacks. That's the way an analog console does it. The
reason why everyone doesn't do it this way is because of cost. They
don't want to pay for that extra analog hardware and switch when the
computer can perform the same functions in the digital world.

There is, of course, some latency when you're overdubbing because you
have to listen to tracks that are being played back from the computer
and what you hear actually comes out some time after the file is read
off the disk. (we've argued in the past about what this is called -
you may hear the term "playback latency") Most DAW programs today can
figure out what that delay is and places your new track so that it
lines up correctly when you play it back, so it doesn't appear as a
problem unless it misses the mark.