The offending party:
http://www.yamaha.com/yamahavgn/CDA/ContentDetail/ModelSeriesDetail/0,,CNTID%25253D48575%252526CTID%25253D228500,00.html

I've been a cheap Tascam 4-track (424mkII) purist for years regarding my home recordings. This weekend, I attemped an ambitious project requiring many bounces and I ended up wearing out the tape. This doesn't happen to minimalists very often, but the medium is holding me back with this project.

So,
as far as digital recording applications go, are these (above, the Yamaha AW1600) things intended for "those guitarists who are too stupid to use a computer based program", or are they perfectly acceptable choices for modest home and live recordings? If it costs $1000 anyway, does it make more sense to go with a laptop? Thanks for any input.

P.S.- A "proper" analog machine isn't in the cards.

A friend of mine has one of these. It sounded pretty good and appeared to have decent preamps in it BUT the interface appears a little clumsy for my taste. He also had issues with "disappearing" sessions as the hard drive began to fill up. I think it just needed a fresh format though since he bought it used.

Hey if $1000 is too much I suggest the Tascam Portastudio line. Which one depends on how many inputs you need. I went cheap and got the DP-01 for $300 which only has 2 1/4 inch inputs, and I'm pretty sure you want more inputs at once. If you're recording one track at a time then you don't need more than 2 but it's always cool to have extras if you want to record a live band. I have a history of using cassette 4-tracks and can tell you the digital ones are very similar in their practical use. For somewhere between 600 and 800 you can get something that has enough ins and preamps. Yamahas are nice too so it's kind of a matter of preference, though if you're going to spend less than 1000 than prob go with the Tascam. The best thing is if you want to go to a computer later you can upload all tracks via USB, which I'm pretty sure is true of all of them unless you buy a used older model. Good luck.

i've had one for many years (Roland 16-bit thing), but these days i'd just go with a computer. there are many reasons why these things are antiquated:

-24-bit/44.1khz is the highest resolution they can go.
-they have lots of built in effects, but most are useless. they don't hold a candle to some of the better plug-ins out there.
-editing is a pain in the ass on a dinky 3" grey screen. it's not very precise either.
-AUTOSUMMING! everything gets bussed to 2 channels no matter what. if you record something onto computer and it turns out really special, you at least have the option of taking it to a studio and summing each channel through a console (as well as being able to use cool outboard stuff on individual tracks). with these recorders you're stuck 'in the box' no matter what.

if you can get one of these boxes for $150, it will be suitable for demos and noodling, but for anything more serious i wouldn't bother.

Maybe the stuff you're used to is older, but with my Portastudio, I can export each and every track UNmixed, UNfiltered in any way, to my PC or Mac. Then I can do that real shit. Buying a computer is not an option available to everybody (both my PC and Mac were second-hand gifts from friends). You're right about the onboard effects, they are usually GARBAGE. The effects loop is the way to go, however every fucking thing I've ever seen with an effects loop sends it out Mono, with stereo returns. How gay! I do a well-panned mix and then get it back all blended up again! The best thing to do with effects is to either have them the way you want them going in in the first place or export the seperate tracks to a computer and do it right!

As fas as editing goes yes they're not too sophisticated, but look we're talking about upgrading from a fucking TAPE RECORDER. It's a wee bit better I think, plus you can take the tracks to a computer and do the precision thing. Anyway that's my rant, I guess I got a bit too serious there. Peace

I use the slighty less expensive model, the AW16G. They're not for shmucks. I enjoy mine. I like pulling up faders, having good pre-amps, dynamics processors, fully tweakable EQs, and many other goodies built right in to the machine. Its a Yamaha machine, so the reverb is great.

You get a CD burner built right in, which is another plus. The fidelity of these machines is pretty great as well. I like having a tangible board to work with, instead of mousing around with parameters on a screen. Thats the biggest plus of these, in my opinion. Hell, you could even use it as a mixer if you needed to.

Recording live with it is pretty easy. You also get 8 tracks of simultenous recording. For a 16 track, these things are quite portable.

If you purchase one, READ THE MANUAL. You'll wreap the full benefits of owning one of these machines if you find all that can be done with it.

I don't work for Yamaha, I just think they make good stuff.

Boombats wrote:As fas as editing goes yes they're not too sophisticated, but look we're talking about upgrading from a fucking TAPE RECORDER.

This is true.

I talked to some more people today, and I figure I could spend $1200 on the Yamaha (which has gotten pretty solid reviews from those I've spoken to), or a $1000 on a Mac, and another grand on getting something that'd allow me more inputs (and some decent A/D converters). Presumably, the machine will hold it's own for a couple years as well, whereas I'm a little skeptical about the reliability and longevity of the computer shtuff.

There's something to be said for aesthetics, isn't there? Since I've enjoyed the Portastudio interface enough to keep up with it this long, I'm wondering if I'd loose the inspiration to record if everything was just mouse clicks instead of knobs and faders?

EDIT: What Wounded Foot said.

You should check out the Korg d1600 MKII. Its 16 individual tracks, can export to USB as WAVs. You can swap out harddrives like crazy. Can be had used for about $600. They are great to work with and very usable, except that it only has unbalanced out. 8 ins (4 xlr/1/4, 4 1/4 balanced) and is uncompressed audio. Hope that helps,
Frank

I own a Roland 16-track recorder that is now over 7 years old. I paid over two grand for it back then and it's probably worth a few hundred bucks now, if that. I also have various computer programs that I use often, like Nuendo, Cubase, Adobe Audition. I've never owned Pro-tools but I've used it.

When it comes to recording my band's material, I use the Roland. Here's why:

1- tactile. you can move faders. i don't like mixing without them.

2- the system is closed, which many on here cite as a disadvantage, and while in some ways that's true (dithering, auto-summing, proprietary formats) I find, in the long run, that it gives the system reliability.

Think of it another way: A computer that you use for other things will tend to slow down the more programs (not to mention tracks and effects) you have going. These little boxes go the same speed no matter what. It seems to me that after 3 or so years, computers become little bitches - maybe this will change over the next few years as RAM gets bigger and dual-core processors become the norm. But my Roland works exactly the same way it did 7 years ago, and until/unless the OS crashes, I imagine it will for a while to come.

If I had the money to purchase a computer solely for the purpose of recording, and I wasn't going to use it for anything else, then I'd go that route over a studio in a box, sure, but I think most people on a budget who try and make records on their computers are using their main computers, and I think it tends to cause A LOT of headaches - headaches that you don't get with a studio in a box.

In spite of the snubbing the 'studio in a box' machines sometimes get, I actually think they are pretty snazzy. Great for people who want to work quick and easy. I got into digital recording with one of these for a number of reasons. One being that I simply did not want to record with a mouse. I purchased one of the higher end SIAB pieces, a Korg D32XD and think it's quite capable of solid recordings on it's own. Stable, reliable, relatively intuitive, with real faders and automation. I slowly turned it into a hard disc recorder as it's entirely slaved to outboard pre-amps and converters at this point. I only use it for storing files and editing. This is something to keep in mind. If the unit you are considering has ADAT in, you can easily upgrade with outboard. The Korg even allows an ADAT output at mixdown which you can use for effect sends that route back into a sub-mixer. I am actually JUST getting around to moving it out as the routing is a bit limiting for me since I mix primarily OTB. I'm getting a 'real' hard disc recorder, an HD24XR, that will be paired up with a Soundcraft Delta console that I just purchased.