#945191 - 07/11/00 03:57 AM
Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
Offline
|
|
How do you feel about stand-alone units (VS-880, DPS-12, etc.) compared to computer-based hard disk recording systems? These days prices are just about comparable, so economics isn't that much of a factor.
I figure there are definite pros and cons of stand-alones compared to computer setups:
Pro: Easy to set up. No operating system B.S. a la Windows or Mac. Self-contained, easy to operate. Generally more ergonomic (real faders, etc.). Often has effects available as a hardware add-on, so you don't have the processor-draining problems associated with plug-ins. More portable than computers.
Cons: Generally not expandable beyond certain factory defined parameters. "No substitutions allowed" -- if you don't like the sound of the EQ, for example, you can't just go out and buy a separate plug-in. More difficult to repair than a computer that uses off the shelf parts. Graphic displays not as detailed as computer programs.
What do YOU think? Any stand-alone owners who wish they had a computer? Or computer owners who regret getting a stand-alone?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945192 - 07/11/00 05:08 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
> How do you feel about stand-alone units (VS-880, DPS-12, etc.) compared to computer-based hard disk recording systems?<
The only time I'd recommend a stand-alone HD recorder is for remote work. These days you can buy a computer and the software for the same, or less, than the cost of an HD unit. And you get a computer too!
Besides, the cons you mentioned, an HD recorder is obsolete the day you buy it. You can upgrade a DAW by buying a new computer, which gets you a new computer too!
--Ethan Winer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945193 - 07/11/00 06:04 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Dylan
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 3671
|
|
Offline
|
|
Agreed that stand-alone units are only good for remote applications.
Using any computer-based hard disk recording system will give you much more flexibility, editing features, and better upgrade options than a stand-alone unit. By the time you add effects cards, a proprietary (and over-priced) CD-burner, outboard processing, etc., you could easilly spend more than $3000. For that price, you could have the best PC in the world coupled with a professional audio interface for a system with literally unlimited tracks and effects processing. Even the cheapest PC's made today ($400 E-machines) can easilly handle 24 tracks of audio, and custom/home built PC's can top 48 in a heart beat.
-Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945194 - 07/11/00 06:56 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
alphajerk
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
|
|
Offline
|
|
ditto, those standalone units are useless in todays world. i didnt know they were that expensive! NEVER would i trade a computer setup for one of those.
however the mackie d8b to a hdr24 i wouldnt be complaining. better yet a sony dmxr100 with a mackie hdr would be nicer.
for remote recording i use my ADAT i tote around.
_________________________
alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945195 - 07/11/00 10:10 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
I don't think the truth lies in either camp. Standalone units are great for remote work, or if you need to record more than X number of tracks at a time, since, short of full blown TDM systems, there are usually some pretty severe limits on simultaneous available record tracks in computer based DAWs. Not a problem if you're working solo and don't need to record a whole band at once, but very limiting once things like live drums enter the picture.
Computer based systems definitely have the edge in editing ease and power currently (although I haven't had a chance to play with any of the new generation standalones yet), plus provide the ability to integrate MIDI sequences and more complex automation.
My ideal system would be an integration of the two, where the standalone unit could talk to the computer unit for editing purposes, and they would sync seamlessly (hah! a pipe dream if ever there was one), while the computer software could directly edit and otherwise access the information on the standalone's HD without time-consuming data transfers. Call me a dreamer.
George
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945196 - 07/11/00 10:14 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
alphajerk
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
|
|
Offline
|
|
there are usually some pretty severe limits on simultaneous available record tracks in computer based DAWs
24 at once isnt enough??? i can get most live band setups in under 12 tracks for initial tracking.
_________________________
alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945197 - 07/11/00 10:30 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Originally posted by alphajerk:
24 at once isnt enough??? i can get most live band setups in under 12 tracks for initial tracking.
Just what computer based non-TDM host based processing system are you getting 24 simultaneous record tracks on, he asks, curiously?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945198 - 07/12/00 05:17 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
Okay, if stand-alones are so out of favor, why has Roland sold a zillion VS-880s and such? Was its validity greater at one time, it just isn't today due to plummeting computer prices? And what about the interface angle -- aren't the dedicated controls kind of nice for a change?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945199 - 07/12/00 05:19 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
>>My ideal system would be an integration of the two, where the standalone unit could talk to the computer unit for editing purposes, and they would sync seamlessly (hah! a pipe dream if ever there was one), while the computer software could directly edit and otherwise access the information on the standalone's HD without time-consuming data transfers. Call me a dreamer.<<
Sounds to me like what you want is an ADAT with random access!!
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945200 - 07/12/00 10:31 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Greetings,
I use a Mac running Cubase VST/24 and I love it most of the time.
The only thing that bugs me is that when I borrow a stand alone unit (for magazine reviews) I end up making better music in less time and more efficiently. I think this is due to a few things.
1. I spend my time actually recording/producing. Not chasing/trying the latest of all the gadzillion freeware plug-ins available.
2. I listen more with my ears than with my eyes. I have a tendency to record with the editor open and see the timing offsets I played. These annoy me and sometimes I feel the need to edit just becasue I see that my timing is off even before I have listened to the recording. What if that humen mistake actually contributed to the overall groove of the tune? It will get lost.
Stand alone units have there limits and are not upgradeble the same way as the computer set up. The blues is pretty limited also but you can do a lot of great things within those limits :-)
On thing with the stand alone units I like are the physical controls. I have checked out Yamaha's new AW4416 and it looks great. If only the sampler unit was somewhat more flexible and it had a built in MIDI sequencer. I'd give it serious thought as the replacement!
Results: No more worrying weather my computer's processor will handle my next song which always seems to be more complex than the last one. No more hassle exchanging the computer to be able to handle the new version of the software I'm running. No more spending (wasting?) my time on computer related matters like system/extension conflicts, crashes, defrags, etc. More time to make more music or just getting it done quicker so I can spend more time with my family. Not a bad scenario, say?
Just my two c's!
Regards,
Mats Nermark
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945201 - 07/12/00 02:28 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
>Okay, if stand-alones are so out of favor, why has Roland sold a zillion VS-880s and such?<
Craig,
I assume most of the sales are to folks who are intimidated by computers. Or maybe to people who use a computer for email and word processing but fear having to deal with much more than that.
--Ethan Winer
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945202 - 07/12/00 02:31 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Originally posted by Anderton:
Sounds to me like what you want is an ADAT with random access!!
Well, as you know, I do have familial associations with the ADAT, but I'm not a fan of random access tape systems, as they always remind me too much of the Coleco Adam system. I don't think you can beat HD for random access (until RAM gets so cheap that I can have a 1 Terabyte RAM based recording system, at least). I would think more along the lines of an HDR24 like box that would become an extension of Logic (or your audio sequencer of choice) with an IEE1394 connection.
George
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945203 - 07/12/00 05:04 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Dylan
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 3671
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderton:
Okay, if stand-alones are so out of favor, why has Roland sold a zillion VS-880s and such? Was its validity greater at one time, it just isn't today due to plummeting computer prices? And what about the interface angle -- aren't the dedicated controls kind of nice for a change?
Hey Craig,
Love your forum! Anyhow, 3 years ago the VS-880 was a great deal when the small selection of high-end computer-based digital workstations were expensive. I personally think the interface on the older VS-880's was terrible and the learning curve is very high most users. It is at least as high as learing a software program, if not higher. The new EX models greatly improve the interface, but seeing how cheap 24-bit digital audio interfaces and PC's are now I just don't get why people would buy them unless they need to be portable. I've got parts in my computer right now that I purchased well over 4 years ago (i.e., CD-burner, SCSI Controller, etc.) that have upgraded perfectly into all of my new computers. You can't say that with a stand-alone unit. It just plain ol' stinks that you have to literally throw away stand-alone units when it comes time to upgrade 2 years down the road when better technology is available.
Plus, whether you like it or not, computers + software are slowly replacing hardware, and if you don't know the software then you're going to be up sh*t creek when it comes to getting engineering gigs.
-Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945204 - 07/12/00 05:08 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Dylan
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 3671
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vanwag@earthlink.net: Originally posted by alphajerk:
24 at once isnt enough??? i can get most live band setups in under 12 tracks for initial tracking.
Just what computer based non-TDM host based processing system are you getting 24 simultaneous record tracks on, he asks, curiously?
The new 7200 RPM UDMA/66 Maxtor hard drives that you can pick up at CompUsa for dirt cheap can easily track 16-tracks at a time. This is plenty for most studio applications. I haven't tried going beyond that, but I wouldn't be surprised if they could do 24 tracks. For about $150 you can get a UDMA/66 RAID Controller and use 2 drives together for a blistering fast setup. This should be able to do 24-tracks flawlessly.
-Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945205 - 07/12/00 05:35 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
alphajerk
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
|
|
Offline
|
|
have you been living an a cave the past few years??? i have no problem doing 24 tracks at a time in my DP setup. i can actually do 32+++ if i had more interfaces.
but i use a 10k rpm drive with 5.3ms seek with an ultra scsi2 card. the drives are @ $500 for 18gigs.
sad fact however is that i never do that many at once, mostly @10-14 tracks for initial tracking but with midi and audio, my tracks will easily span over 50+ faders. i can use the hell out of plugins, when i load it down, i print them freeing up more processing power.
yea, standalone units might have a control surface but their automation SUCKS!! nothing compared to what i can do. and editing is more powerful on the computer, plugins are better. everything is better.
_________________________
alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945206 - 07/12/00 05:36 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Originally posted by Dylan Walters:
The new 7200 RPM UDMA/66 Maxtor hard drives that you can pick up at CompUsa for dirt cheap can easily track 16-tracks at a time.... This should be able to do 24-tracks flawlessly.
-Dylan
I'm not talking about whether the hard drive can handle it. I'm talking about the audio interface/converter and software/driver combination. On a host based system, I've yet to see anything that can handle more than 4 simultaneous record tracks.
George
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945207 - 07/12/00 07:49 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Dylan
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 3671
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by alphajerk:
have you been living an a cave the past few years??? i have no problem doing 24 tracks at a time in my DP setup. i can actually do 32+++ if i had more interfaces.
but i use a 10k rpm drive with 5.3ms seek with an ultra scsi2 card. the drives are @ $500 for 18gigs.
SCSI is a whole differnet ball-game than IDE, so no, I haven't been living in a Cave ;-). SCSI drives will allow 24+ tracks of simultaneous recording, but this has always been a trick for IDE drives to pull off until recently. Playback is a whole different issue, as even the slowest hard drives on the market can play back up to 32 tracks a time.
-Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945208 - 07/12/00 07:51 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Dylan
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 02/28/00
Posts: 3671
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vanwag@earthlink.net:
I'm not talking about whether the hard drive can handle it. I'm talking about the audio interface/converter and software/driver combination. On a host based system, I've yet to see anything that can handle more than 4 simultaneous record tracks.
George
4-tracks? Yikes! What kind of systems have you tried? Most 8-channel interfaces that I've used can pull off 8-tracks at a time no sweat.16-32 channel interfaces like the Hammerfall that use light-pipe usually work very well if your system can handle it.
-Dylan
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945209 - 07/12/00 08:28 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
arthur@canaveralskies.com
Senior Member
Registered: 06/18/00
Posts: 35
Loc: New York,NY,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
>I'm not talking about whether the hard drive can handle it. I'm talking about the audiointerface/converter and software/driver combination. On a host based system, I've yet to see anything that can handle more than 4 simultaneous record tracks.<
Umm...I've been using the MOTU 2408 for over a year. It's a host-
based system. It has 8 A/D converters built in to the hardware
interface, as well as ways to hook up up to 24 tracks of
TDIF and/or lightpipe. I use the A/D converters in my DA-7
mixer then send them through lightpipe to the 2408, so I can
record 24 tracks of A/D at once onto my trusty Macintosh if I
ever need to.
MOTU also has other interfaces besides the 2408. I believe
that they have one that can do 24 tracks of A/D at 24-bit.
Native systems have definitely caught up with TDM. (As long
as you have a computer that won't blow up from the strain.)
Arthur
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945210 - 07/12/00 09:56 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
alphajerk
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
|
|
Offline
|
|
which most newer computers will do easily.
i could understand 5 years ago when i was dumping stereo tracks into my trusty pentium I and everytime you moved the mouse while it was recording you ended up it a click in the track. i was burning cd's back then that cost $4.50 each, at 1x speed.
buti have never seen technological growth like the past 5 years. now most computers can do a whole LOT of processing and drives are able to route a LOT more bitsnbytes.
these "stand alone" units are destined to stand alone outside, by the recycling dump. NO FLEXIBILITY, which you MUST have today. minimal upgradability which is a BIG no no.
i could see their use for kids if they were half as much $$$, maybe more. any grown up should own a G4 that can handle recording chores, internet, office stuff, etc. obviously the more you use it, other computers in the house might be necessary....
and yes, the motu 24i can convert 24 tracks and record them into your computer in 24 bit quality.
_________________________
alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#945211 - 07/13/00 02:51 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
idonthuff
Member
Registered: 01/25/00
Posts: 3
Loc: Dayton, OH
|
|
Offline
|
|
Have to agree with many of the others here. A solid host-based system can easily handle more than 4 record tracks. On my Athlon 650 - MOTU 24i - 256MB RAM - 10k SCSI system I have laid down 20 solid tracks from a live (and I mean LIVE, with 700+ audience and 105 db PA system) show during sets over a half hour long with no problems. It just takes a system dedicated to audio without MS Office and other junk cluttering everything up. Get good components, good cooling fans, and stable (read: not-usually-the-latest-version) drivers, and away you go. And yes, MOTU 24i is twenty four good-sounding 24 bit analog inputs, and they can all be used simultaneously.
Isaac
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945212 - 07/14/00 01:27 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Doug Robinson
Senior Member
Registered: 03/22/00
Posts: 37
Loc: San Diego, CA
|
|
Offline
|
|
With all due respect...
What a bunch of geeks! Actually, some very smart folks here, but boy--you guys must be ready to burst from drinking your own bathwater.
Craig, the reason no one here is even begrudgingly bestowing any praise on standalone systems has more to do with who hangs out here, not the validity of one approach over another.
I'm going to say something that hopefully many of you will agree with: it is the talent, not the tools. Say it again, and with feeling: it is the talent, not the tools. We've all heard recordings made on far more primitive equipment than today's standalone harddisk recorders that rocked our worlds. And unless you're just intent on winning this pissing contest, you've probably heard utter pieces of crap done on NASA-level computer-based systems.
Of course there are differences. In some cases they are sonic and in others they are simply a question of features you may or may not need. I can afford a GPS in my car, but i don't want one. (I'm sure over on the Lexus GPS boards they are talking about folks like me as being one step removed from a neandrethal.)
There are definitely advantages to both approaches, just as there are drawbacks to each. You guys who use the "portability" benefit like some throwaway lightweight thing...well, you've either accepted the physical limitations of your chosen format or your life must be quite different from mine. I've brought overdubs to LA and NY on my VS1680, and I've also recorded artists thousands of miles from my home state--all with only some mics, a preamp and not much else.
But ultimately, it's no different than the boring Mac vs PC wars, or the AOL vs everything else wars, or anything else where some people spend a tremendous amount of effort trying to justify their own decisions by putting down the decisions of others.
There are plenty of reasons I've stayed away from recording on my computer. For some reason, I don't find it pleasurable or even necessary to edit with quite the same level of ferocity as others--perhaps I'm just a superior player.  I also don't enjoy looking at my edits, either--I don't mean to be glib, but I think editing primarily by ear is an art form and I dig it. If I could bounce back from what would certainly be overwhelming depression, I think I'd be a godd blind musician because I basically use my ears right now to edit--in fact, the tighter the edit, the more fun it is for me.
I've worked on ProTools a bit, side by side with folks who I'm sure even this hardboiled gang would consider to be knowledgable (and one who could be considered a power user). The features were fantastic, although virtually everything we needed to do was something I could do faster on my VS1680, just different in execution. Sneer if you like, but that's the honest truth. During one intense 3 day mixing session, the system crashed or hung up 2 or 3 times--not very cool at all. If you enjoy that particular user interface, you're in heaven. And of course, the number of options, via plug ins, is exceptional. I certainly do concede that you can do *more* things with a computer based system. Whether those things help or harm your music...I'm sure you've all experienced it both ways.
Thankfully, there are other options available for those who just don't like staring at a computer screen for months on end, or for those who don't need nearly limitless options. I am a producer, musician and a composer, and I need to get the music down without too many distractions. That was the point of me setting up my project studio.
<>
You must be speaking for yourself, because I was recording keeper tracks for an album project the day i took the original VS880 out of its box, and only a few weeks before i felt I had mastered most of the key features. Let's just say it is taking me quite a bit longer to master Performer.
Different brains appreciate different approaches, period. Unless it makes a significant difference in the quality of what comes out the speakers, to each his own.
Having said all that...the standalone recorder/mixer combination have a long way to go before I would consider them perfect. There are far too many compromises--shared faders (hey, at least there ARE faders!), shitty onboard automation, cryptic, puny graphic displays for those times when I'd like to give my ears a rest and just do things visually, and limited ability to interface with the outside world are only a few of them. But even in their primordial state, they suit the way I work better than anything else I've experienced, and it isn't for lack of trying.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945213 - 07/14/00 05:01 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by vanwag@earthlink.net:
Well, as you know, I do have familial associations with the ADAT, but I'm not a fan of random access tape systems, as they always remind me too much of the Coleco Adam system.
Coleco Adam systems! Now there's a scary thought. Anyway, I didn't make myself clear -- I didn't mean tape with random access, but something ADAT-like. I guess E-mu's Darwin came pretty close, but it suffered from rev-itis ("it will have what you want in the next rev") and it didn't have that tight editing integration needed to make this kind of system work.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945214 - 07/14/00 05:50 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Sergievsky
Gold Member
Registered: 03/26/00
Posts: 961
Loc: Manila, Philippines
|
|
Offline
|
|
Maybe what Craig had in mind was more the Yamaha that I saw in Japan, dunno the name, but it's 8tracks on magneto-optical per unit...looked really cool and I would pick it over ADAT or Tascam, only problem is nobody else has one. It would be awesome for remote but with the new 24tracks machines from Tascam and Mackie coming out, well, three units of the 8track machines are a little heavier, as well as much more expensive. Anybody else knows of these Yamaha units?
_________________________
Raul
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945215 - 07/15/00 03:26 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Vanwag: Just 'cause YOU haven't seen anything more that 4 at a time doesn't mean they're not out there, geeze. Lots of companies make 8 to 16 input units, and MOTU has 24 input units. Where you been, dude?
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945216 - 07/15/00 04:16 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
JohnBartus
Senior Member
Registered: 03/04/00
Posts: 176
Loc: Marathon, FL, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
One thing I haven't seen anyone else mention in this debate (and it may be out of place considering the topic) is -- on both standalone and computer-based systems -- the lack of the immediate satisfaction of tactile control over all functions that a standard console/tape machine/outboard gear setup gives you. This is still a major drawback of most HD recording systems, although it is getting better in some. Using a mouse or navigating through myriad pages and sub-menus isn't quite as intuitive as the "old-fashioned" method.
Another drawback for HD recording is the matter of backup. Although better than it was a few short years ago, it's still a hassle -- and expensive considering the cost per megabyte compared with digital tape systems.
Perhaps the ideal setup is the Mackie HD recorder combined with the Digital 8-Bus or the new Sony digital board. The removable drives seem robust and stable compared with SCSI or IDE HDs. And if they just get a handle on the cost... although 2" tape wasn't exactly cheap -- or easy to lug around.
Just some thoughts...
------------------
John Bartus
Radio Active Productions
We Make Great Radio Happen - Guaranteed.
1-888-93-RADIO
http://www.radioactivedigital.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945217 - 07/15/00 06:21 PM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
arthur@canaveralskies.com
Senior Member
Registered: 06/18/00
Posts: 35
Loc: New York,NY,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Also, there can be great tactile pleasure in patching in equipment
by hand. I have yet to find a plug-in that can give me the
satisfaction of patching things into my trusty analog mixer.
With the twist of my wrist, I can remove the flat beater
and install either the wire whisk or the dough hook. Plus,
with 325 Watts, I can get really phat and frothy meringues
one minute, then knead babke dough the next. Try that with
a digital mixer!
I have to admit, however, that my KitchenAid KS55 adds
much more noise than than even the worst DAW.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945218 - 07/16/00 02:38 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anderton
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 01/28/00
Posts: 7346
|
|
Offline
|
|
But seriously folks...I do find that a digital mixer has really improved my life with computer-based hard disk recording systems. It's much easier to route, test out EQ settings, etc. on the mixer than in the computer. Also, I find the StudioMix a very useful accessory with Cakewalk...guess I'm just a sucker for real faders. So I guess I'm really depending on the ultimate editing capability of the computer, but I prefer an interface that more closely resembles the stand-alone box.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945219 - 07/16/00 07:12 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
alphajerk
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/06/00
Posts: 7950
Loc: asheville nc usa
|
|
Offline
|
|
the sony dmxr100 is the first digital desk that makes me wanna pull out my wallet. none of the others looks worth the investment. ive played around on most of them and resistive faders, ewwww! just for that reason alone i dont want to buy one of those desks mo matter how convient it is. i got a controller i can use to modify faders if need be. i would rather edit graphically. im actually becoming quite acustomed to all the submenu's and flipping between windows. once you go the shortcut keys down, its even faster to work. but touch sensitive faders and a TOUCH screen!!! that paired up with a computer system would be insane. all the editing, midi, automation, dsp, all at your fingertips.
_________________________
alphajerk FATcompilation "if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#945220 - 07/17/00 02:42 AM
Re: Stand-alone vs. computer-based DAWs
|
Anonymous
Anonymous
Unregistered
|
Re: real faders... Ya know, I really missed 'em at first. Initial level setting was much easier. But I'm realizing that once I get to the mixing stage, I really only made tweaks anyway. Volume envelopes don't seem too cumbersome at that point. If only the multi-tracking software would implement it correctly  .
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
