1. Register NOW and become part of this fantastic knowledge base forum! This message will go away once you have registered.

Analog to digital? Advice needed

Discussion in 'Recording' started by ap-emerger, Apr 14, 2006.

  1. ap-emerger

    ap-emerger Guest

    Hello, first time posting here.
    Well, here's the scoop. I've got a home recording studio. It's an 8 track TEAC 1/2 reel to reel. It's powered by a kick-a$$ harmon Kardon tube. I've been using a decent mackie 16 channel mixing board, decent tube pre-amps, standard out-board effects rack.

    Now...Here's the problem: a reel of tape cost $77 bucks for 33 minutes. Also, analog is starting to show its age due to the mixing & mastering stages it becomes archaic.

    What I want to know, if someone wants to "cross-over" to the digital domain, what is the most inexpensive/ best sound/ ease of use, way to do it. I have looked at single unit Roland 8 & 16 track digital recorders used for a nice price. But, I've also considered stepping it up a bit and getting a Mac with Pro-Tools.

    Any advice is appreciated.

    AP 8)
  2. chrispick

    chrispick Guest

    The most flexible, customizable solution would be a computer running digital audio workstation (DAW) software. It's also the most expandable tool set.

    ProTools is one such solution, but certainly not the only one. Other capable, pro-level DAW softwares include Logic, Nuendo, Digital Performer, Sonar and Cubase, any of which may prove more affordable once all other elements are accounted for.

    Generally, all you need for a comp-based DAW is: a computer, audio sequencing/editing software (like those listed above), an audio interface (for MIDI and A/D conversion), monitors to listen and cables to connect everything. A/D converters can differ in the quality of their conversion, so if highest audio fidelity is an important issue for you, research to make sure you invest wisely.

    I don't believe it matters much which computer platform you choose; both Macs and Window systems are capable. Set-up is typically a little easier on a Mac since the OS is built to deal with it directly. A Win-PC will give you greater processing power at a lower cost. Short of that, both platforms are more alike than different when it comes to DAW work.

    Self-contained portable DAWs like the Roland units are very robust and durable -- they're constructed to perform one trick well, after all -- but they're more cumbersome than comp-based systems when it comes to editing audio. They also have limited expandability, especially regarding third-party mixing tools. One of the great aspects of comp-based DAWs is the array of add-on effects you can accumulate as your mix needs grow.

    My own experience: In the digital realm, I started out with a Roland VS-880. I've progressed to a Mac G5 running Digital Performer and use it for professional work. I've never looked back. And given that you've already invested in good front-end analog gear (pres, efx, etc.), I'll bet you'll feel the same way.
  3. ap-emerger

    ap-emerger Guest

    Thank you

    I really appreciate it!


    AP 8)
  4. alfonso

    alfonso Active Member

    The jump from an old tape recorder to a PT system is huge...I think that having some good quality dsp running along the main cpu is a very good idea, as long as you need some features of such a quality level that would seriously burden your system if running in a completely native way.

    I've found the system that fits my needs perfectly with the Creamware Scope platform. A couple of Scope Pro cards in a good PC and a sequencer of choice make a professional system with an incredibly good sound, the best synth emulations, samplers, processors, some of the best sounding stuff of the market, for a fraction of the cost of a PT professional system.

    If you are ok with a simple native solution or a laptop, well, you can have a lot with that solution, but if you need something else to the point you start thinking of throwing in lot of $$$...well, consider a Scope system first, it's maybe better than PT (my opinion), much more flexible and incredibly featured.

Share This Page