OK, I realize that title is a bit whacky, but... :D
Situation: I have a little home studio which isn't too bad, I've soundproofed the control and tracking rooms, put in a floating floor, etc. Not pro but also not totally beginner. Anyhow I'd like to step up the tracking to a professional quality level so this studio can be used to track rock/country/blues of a quailty appropriate to be sent to a pro studio for mixing.
Currently I'm running a Mackie Onyx 1220 into an EMU 1212m (Balanced I/O with studioflex cables) out to a pair of Event TR8's with an Event 250 Sub on the way. The quality is surprisingly excellent but I'd like to make it as good as is reasonably possible.
My question is whether I would be better off buying a DAT/ADAT such as the Alesis HR24 and just start recording to that, or if I would be better off buying something like a Rosetta 200 and running that into my DAW (Nuendo 2). When I say "better off" I'm referring to raw quality, i.e. which of those solutions will be preferrable to the mixing engineer I hand the tracks to?
Also, for the Alesis HR24, is this I/O upgrade worth the $700?
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=home/search/detail/base_pid/450056/
Also curious what anyone thinks of this piece:
http://www.musiciansfriend.com/srs7/g=rec/search/detail/base_pid/241251/
Thanks for any advice, much appreciated. I'm a little confused now but hopefully my questions will get a bit more intelligent as go along. :D
Topic Tags
Comments
As far as digitizing goes I think you would be better off with t
As far as digitizing goes I think you would be better off with the Rosetta. The HR 24 is a stand alone hard disk recorder, not a digital audio tape machine like dat and adat, and as far as the AD process goes, does not have as good a converter as the Rosetta. The HR 24 could be useful if you do location/live recording. I own a Rosetta 800 and love it and I have rented a HR 24 to do live recordings and then digitally transfered it into my daw (Digi 002r) and it worked great as well.