#967102 - 07/20/01 08:48 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderton:
It seems like every day, there's a new "studio in a box." If you have one, which did you go with, and why? Does Roland still have the edge? Is the Korg D1600 as good as it's cracked up to be? What about Fostex, and the Akai DPS series? Your thoughts, please........
Well Craig, you alreay know what I went with - two Yamaha AW4416's, digitally cascaded.
Why? several reasons:
1) Expandability. Each has two option card slots, and each of mine has a 8 channel lightpipe card installed in each slot - allowing me to transfer audio into and out of my computer for editing, or to bring more tracks into the AW's 44 channel mixer (88 on a cascaded pair) from the computer or ADAT tape decks over lightpipe. Or I can connect a 8 channel A/D converter with a lightpipe output (or just "swap cards" - takes 10 seconds - and use the Yamaha A/D, or an Apogee A/D card) and hook up my outboard preamps (Vintech/Neve, Presonus, Joe Meek, etc) for different "colors". Who else has so many expansion options? Not only does Yamaha sell several different cards, but you can get Apogee A/D and D/A cards for it, as well as the soon to be released Waves Y56K multi-effect / dynamics / lightpipe I/O card. AFAIK, no one else even comes CLOSE to that set of expansion options.
2) The mixer. Let's face it - the AW4416 is basically a 02R in just about every respect except you get 60mm faders instead of 100mm (bummer), with the AW you get better converters (and IMO) preamps, although fewer of them and they're somewhat gain challenged, and you only have two option slots instead of the four on an 02R. Functionally they're so similar that as far as routing and mixing features go, if you've used one, you'll easily transition to the other. And the 02R's still way above the mixing features of most "SIAB's" (Studios In A Box). I wanted full 4 band true parametric EQ, and didn't want to have to limit myself regarding which channels would get it, or which channels would get a dynamics processor. The AW has them on every channel. I also wanted (actually NEEDED) full recall, moving fader automation, which the AW has. It's a kick a#* mixer... PLUS you get a 16 track, 24 bit non-data compressed 16 track recorder to boot.
3. Audio recording quality. The AW compares quite well with the sonics of just about any recorder you care to mention - IMO, it's certainly good enough that it's not going to be a hinderance to all but the most golden eared listeners. And I'm pretty picky, and (all modesty aside) I have been blessed with some pretty good ears. The audio quality is there. If you can't make a good, commercially viable recording with this machine, then don't blame the AW. But don't believe all of Yamaha''s marketing hype - a few outboard preamps, some better converters, a external master word clock, some great mcs, good source material (singers, instruments, etc.) and a great song played with heart and conviction are important to have too if you want to do first class work with the AW... as a matter of fact, IMO, these are all important no matter which SIAB product you decide to get.
I've been very happy with mine, and don't regret the decision to get them at all.
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
email: pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967103 - 07/20/01 10:05 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Bonafide:
That has never been a question. Roland was the first, they continued to add more products. They offered similiar machines for both beginers and pros and like anything new that is good, word of mouth spread like wildfire because the product was very ingenious.
HOWEVER, regardless of the size of Roland's forum or popularity, It certainly does not make thier product the best, not by a long shot. The fact is, by the time I decided to purchase a similiar unit, there were many more to choose from and some with features that I prefered.Better? too subjective, but I went with something else. I am just glad that Roland is not the ONLY available unit. (SNIP) Same holds true with ALL gear. It comes down to taste. I don't care who has the biggest forum or the most followers, I buy gear for performance and features that fit MY tastes. Pretty simple.
Cheers.
I couldn't agree more... and when I reply to Argomax's post (don't worry Max, I didn't miss it!  ) I'd appreciate it if everyone would keep it in mind that I agree with Bonafide's excellent points. It does NOT matter to me WHICH machine you choose... that's your personal preferences, and IMO, the sources (mics, instruments, singers, etc), performances and most of all, SONGS and Arrangements are FAR more important than which of the current units you use to record them - oh, and one more thing I left off - your skill and creativity as a producer / engineer...
Love and Mercy,
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
email: pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967104 - 07/20/01 10:25 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderton:
Regardless of brand, it seems that the market is splitting in two directions: people who use all-in-one machines, and computer-based aficionados. Is it just me, or is the component-oriented, "recorder + mixer" setup fading into history?
I really wish something like these buggers had been around when I first started recording... 
I'm not so sure it is fading so much as it's changing. IMO, Jim Aikin was right on the money when he said in the AW4416 review in the Jan 2001 issue of Keyboard that no stand alone could compete with a computer for editing features and ease of use for making edits. Certainly I agree with that to the point where I fly things back and forth between the computer and the AW's in an attempt to use each tool for what it does best.
Stand alones are great for live remote recording, since they're far easier than taking a seperate board and recorder (or CPU / Monitor / keyboard / mouse) out to the gig. Personally, I prefer tracking and mixing on a hardware surface, instead of in software... and things like Pro Tools controllers, the new Logic Controller, etc. are starting to become quite popular - IMO, this can be seen as a modern day analogy to the mixing console / recorder, with the control surface acting as a "board" and the computer acting as the recorder / efx rack, with the added bonus of visual editing on a MUCH larger screen.
I was going to say that one nice thing about computer systems is that they can be easily reconfigured by the user with the addition of software, but that can be a double edged sword. Certainly there's more software choices, but there's also something to be said for a device that's dedicated to doing one thing well instead of doing your spreadsheets, email and everything else along with your music.
Yamaha should have the new 2.0 software for the AW4416 out in the very near future and one of the great new features is full MIDI CC capabilities - I'm looking forward to using the AW faders to control things within Logic.As this sort of thing becomes more popular and more refined, the integration of the two systems (stand alone DAW and computer DAW) will not only become more streamlined but more powerful and user friendly at the same time.
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
email: pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967105 - 07/20/01 10:45 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Anderton:
...and multiple levels of undo with an undo history is even better! I wish everything came with an undo function
Boy you've got that one right! In the analog days, you got really really good at punching in and out because you had no choice - blow the punch, and you'd have to re-track a larger section than you originally intended... and a lot of machines had god - awful punch charecteristics. When I went to ADAT, I was amazed at how much better it punched than many analog decks (although I was always fond of the way Otari MX80's punched) - I found I could frequently punch syllables in the middle of words with a ADAT / BRC, plus the fact that you could clone a track as a backup "just in case" you blew the punch. Now with the AW's, I don't even have to make the clone track... if I do miss the punch, I just hit "undo". That alone is a big time saver! Then again, these "youngsters" don't know the "joy" of really learning how to do lightening punches (they have auto punch for that now) nor the "joys" of sliced fingers and thumbs from razorblade editing of analog tape! 
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
email: pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967106 - 07/20/01 02:53 PM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
not coaster MODERATOR
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 03/27/01
Posts: 5306
Loc: Nowhere Special
|
|
Offline
|
|
Phil-you're the best AW evangelist around!
While I'm awaiting the new price-friendly MACS to actually ship, I can still dream about other possibilities. The AW heads my standalone list but here lies my problem. I use outboard synths. But it's time to upgrade. I would like a first class B3 unit, analog minimoog and of course Rhodes. To buy the hw is gonna cost $3,000 minimum. On a MAC however I can get the Native Instrument/Reason products for maybe $500 total.
I know I don't stand alone here. The solution is simple. Yamaha add a sequencer to their AW, and joint-venture with the software guys to port synths into the expansion cards. Creamware? Others?
Even if I picked up that SX-1 for $7,000 you can see my price would soar to 10,000.
Therefore, with 10,000 in my studio budget I'm leaning MAC right now.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#967107 - 07/20/01 08:48 PM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
lovesinger
Senior Member
Registered: 05/02/01
Posts: 406
Loc: DALLAS,TEXAS, USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:
Well Craig, you alreay know what I went with - two Yamaha AW4416's, digitally cascaded. ... I've been very happy with mine, and don't regret the decision to get them at all.
So Phil, (referring to your equip list on your website) did the AW's replace the ADATs and BRC, the 5050, or none of the above?
My musical focus is the same as yours (I personally call it Modern Christian, and its scope of musical styles is wider than the narrow selection of styles usually heard on today's CCM playlists) and I'd like to know how you & your clients regard any differences the AW's have made. Email me if you like.
------------------
God loves You! Why not love Him back?
_________________________
-- Music has miracle potential --
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#967108 - 07/21/01 02:03 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Bonafide
Senior Member
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 246
Loc: Santa Barbara, Ca.
|
|
Offline
|
|
I was thinking about that mega production station, the SX-1. I saw it a few months ago on Tascams website. What happens if something fails?, would you have to send the whole friggin unit in for repairs? Those kinds of things scare me. I do keep digital file backup CDs of all of my parameters, songs, EQ settings etc. But wouldn't you be a little afraid that a lot of hard work would be lost when the techs were 'under the hood'. It does happen quite often. What about if.. when it breaks, you cannot back up your data? Even if you can you are now without MANY pieces of your studio. With a standalone seperate Sequencer, mastering tools, etc. You can at least continue to work to some degree. If this baby is 'in the shop' you are basically screwed.
That would be my only serious concern.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967109 - 07/21/01 03:13 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Curve Dominant
MP Hall of Fame Member
Registered: 10/29/00
Posts: 4223
Loc: Philadelphia USA
|
|
Offline
|
|
Bonafide, remember:
• Built-in CD-RW drive for printing stereo mixes, data backup and archiving, and importing sounds from audio or data CDs.
Save often, and you don't have to sweat that stuff, man. I don't see Tascam sending an unstable unit to market, though. Stability is what it's all about with stand-alones. I just took my VS across town to do a mixdown at another bigger commercial studio, and it got there and did it's thing, got home, and started kickin' again without blinking an eye. I was paranoid as hell taking the thing out of the house, but I'm over that paranoia now. It's a new world, and stand-alone DAWs are getting a solid foot in it, and it's their stability that's doing it for 'em.
I still like that SX-1. Connect it with a MX2424, and you got 32-track uncompressed digital, 128-track MIDI, Surround 5.1, SMPTE, onboard CDR backup, waveform editing, TC & Antares DSP, ba-bee ba-boo ba-bah...good to go for any pro app. Under $10K. Aye aye aye...
E
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967110 - 07/21/01 06:22 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Cereal:
Phil-you're the best AW evangelist around!
I guess I'm guilty of being an AW evangelist... I just am really impressed with the things, but I'm certainly willing to concede that it's not the right choice in every situation or for every person.
While I'm awaiting the new price-friendly MACS to actually ship, I can still dream about other possibilities. The AW heads my standalone list but here lies my problem. I use outboard synths. But it's time to upgrade. I would like a first class B3 unit, analog minimoog and of course Rhodes. To buy the hw is gonna cost $3,000 minimum. On a MAC however I can get the Native Instrument/Reason products for maybe $500 total.
Good point. If you want to get into soft synths, then a computer is the only way to go right now.
I know I don't stand alone here. The solution is simple. Yamaha add a sequencer to their AW, and joint-venture with the software guys to port synths into the expansion cards. Creamware? Others?
Interesting thought. I could see additional uses for the card slots, but an onboard sequencer is probably never going to happen for the current AW, and frankly, I don't see that as being as advantageous as you do. Look at the new Tascam... nice features, but IMO, it's overpriced compared to what you can get seperately. As a all in one, it might be quite attractive for the radio station production studio, but for the project / small commercial studio market, I'd think other options would be more cost effective and attractive. You can get a very capable PC for $3,500, software and audio / MIDI interfaces included, and add an AW4416 with two lightpipe option cards for about another $3,500 - that's probably about what the new Tascam will cost on the street, or maybe a bit less than the SX-1. While the tascam has some great features, many of them will be of minimal use for most project studios. Again, the Tascam has some killer features, but do you need Sony sync? Personally, I prefer to pay for what I need, and I think that an AW (or someother type of controller) as a "front end" with a good computer offers the best of both worlds - you can take the stand alone anywhere, and use the superior editing and MIDI of the PC... and your options on a computer for software are going to exceed those available on a stand alone.
Even if I picked up that SX-1 for $7,000 you can see my price would soar to 10,000.
Absolutely.
Therefore, with 10,000 in my studio budget I'm leaning MAC right now.
A mac with the right goodies might indeed be the best choice for you, and I hope everything works out well for you.
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
pokeefe777@msn.com
This message has been edited by pokeefe777@msn.com on 07-21-2001 at 03:24 AM
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967111 - 07/21/01 06:47 AM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by lovesinger:
Originally posted by pokeefe777@msn.com:
Well Craig, you already know what I went with - two Yamaha AW4416's, digitally cascaded. ... I've been very happy with mine, and don't regret the decision to get them at all.
So Phil, (referring to your equip list on your website) did the AW's replace the ADATs and BRC, the 5050, or none of the above?
Boy, I really need to get the new website up and running! That one is SO out of date!
For compatability with other studios and "legacy" projects, I went ahead and purchased two LX20's. Those can provide an additional 16 tracks to the 32 tracks onboard the two AW4416's. I use them fairly rarely.
I got rid of the Mackie 32*8, and the four blackface ADATs. I still have the MX5050, but it's up for sale... I just have not gotten around to advertising it on EBay or in the Recycler. I still like the "analog sound" for some things, so I got a Otari half track machine, so I have wider track width at the expense of only being able to do two tracks at a time. For me, it's worth the trade off.
I also got a Frontier Designs Dakota and Montana card for my PIII 933 MHz computer, which is running Logic Platinum 4.7 and Vegas Audio 2.0. I can easily get 32 tracks from the computer, which feed the lightpipe inputs on the AW4416's (two option cards per AW, each provides 8 channels of digital I/O). Since the AW's have 44 channel mixers (16 for the Hard disk recorder, 4 set up as two stereo efx returns for the two onboard efx processors and 24 others, which can come from up to 16 inputs via option cards, S/PDIF inputs, the 8 mic / line inputs, etc. So between the 32 AW tracks and the 32 coming from the computer into the AW's via lightpipe, I have a 64 track system.
Once the version 2.0 software is released for the AW, I'll be able to totally control the computer from the AW, and the AW from the computer, via MTC, MMC and MIDI CC data.
I upgraded and added lots of other stuff that's not on the old website too, but I'd be here forever listing it all and explaining my reasons for selecting each item...
My musical focus is the same as yours (I personally call it Modern Christian, and its scope of musical styles is wider than the narrow selection of styles usually heard on today's CCM playlists) and I'd like to know how you & your clients regard any differences the AW's have made. Email me if you like.
Cool. I'd love to hear some of your work sometime.
Well, everyone can hear the difference 24 bit makes over 16 bit recording, and that tends to make people very happy. The biggie for me is the automation. I can do SO much more on the AW's than I could ever do on the Mackie. The EQ's better, as are the preamps. Can you do a good sounding record on a Mackie with original ADATs? Sure, but it's harder than on the AW's, and the "Polaroid Automation" I was stuck with for the Mackie kept driving me nuts. If I had a client in mid mix who couldn't come in the next day for some reason, I either had a down day (unbookable) or had to document every knob of the board... even with the VCA fade / mute automation, it's no comparison. I can come back to a mix exactly as I left it six months ago and make whatever changes I want in seconds.
Feel free to drop me an email at my email address in my signature and we'll talk about it some more in private if you'd like.
Blessings,
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967112 - 07/21/01 03:13 PM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Bonafide
Senior Member
Registered: 06/18/01
Posts: 246
Loc: Santa Barbara, Ca.
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by Curve Dominant:
Bonafide, remember:
Save often, and you don't have to sweat that stuff, man. I don't see Tascam sending an unstable unit to market, though. Stability is what it's all about with stand-alones.
E
Hey Curve, I see your point and I do backup often. That is a given these days. Funny how you have to backup with such stable units As far as Tascam sending out an unstable unit, Cmon here. It has happened over and over in the past, not just Tascam but ALL companies. Regardless of the beta testing done by companies, ANY complex piece of gear gets its real time trials in the real world by real users. The 'bugs' come from real life users because they tap the multiple endless parameters of a machine. I have seen bugs in Tascam gear before, bigtime. Even of Late I have seen Tascam release vers. 1.02,-1.03-1.04-1.05-1.06,1.07 of a piece of gear in less than 4 months time. Now All companies have bugs that are found out in the realworld and in all reality the consumer is often the beta tester.
My original point stands though, WHAT if something goes awry? You are indeed out of alot of studio. And believe me, I think the SX-1 is just as sexy and it has left some drool on my keyboard as well. if I had the $$$ I think I would wait until it was out for a year, alot happens to a piece of gear in year.
Cheers.
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
#967113 - 07/21/01 11:29 PM
Re: Roland vs. Korg vs. Fostex vs. Akai vs...
|
Philip O'Keefe
10k Club
Registered: 12/17/00
Posts: 17674
Loc: Riverside,CA,UNITED STATES
|
|
Offline
|
|
Originally posted by argomax:
The Yamaha AW 4416 was a candidate a few months ago BUT:
It became old pretty soon, with 24-trackers now out from Roland & Akai;
it's full of bugs;
it's okay in quality and features but everybody who has it says it's not stellar (even as reviewed by Jim Aikin, I think that was him, on Keyboard mag, help me Craig). PHIL O'KEEFE DON'T GET AGGRAVATED WITH ME!!! It's surely a great machine, but I'll stick with the Roland for the moment.
Max, you didn't think I'd forget about this did you? No worries - I'm not aggrivated with you. Your opinions are certainly as valid as anyone else's, and when it comes to what works for you, they're the only ones that matter.
Having said that, a few minor corrections are in order here:
Who says "the AW isn't stellar"? Everyone? I think that's a overstatement. I love both of mine. Dansouth seems to really like his. Lee Flier seems to enjoy hers...
True, there's now 24 track stand alones from Roland and Akai(is the new Akai shipping now too?). However, the Roland DOES use data compression UNLESS you want to run 16 tracks maximum - in which case, you're at the same track count as the AW4416. For some people this is a non-issue, for others it's a deal breaker. Personally I'd be more inclinded to look at the Akai over the Roland, because I'm not a fan of the compression. YMMV.
The AW4416, like just about any new product these days, has had its share of bugs. I had one of the first 50 in the USA, and have had every OS version on it at one point or another. There's been a total of six different OS versions / updates to this date... that shows a very strong committment to improving things on Yamaha's part. The AW has only been shipping since October, and they're already getting prepared for the 2.0 OS release, which will add even more features. That will make seven OS versions in less than a year, and many of the bugs that Jim Aikin mentioned were killed off two OS versions ago. It may not have the feature set you prefer (if any one device was perfect for everyone, there would be no market for so many different SIAB's) but it is a very nice sounding and quite useable tool as of right now, and the new features on OS 2.0 will make it even better.
Also, with both the Korg and the Yamaha, I think that internal CD burning is totally overkill, because very probably we'd like to master outside of the machine anyway, and that pushes us to do it inside. I don't think that's a good idea, it makes the whole process too mechanical, too digital. I like to come out in analog and go into an analog compressor or some other processor, before burning a CD. Other people might want to run some soft-editor onto the stereo master.
I normally take the S/PDIF out of the last AW in my pair and feed it into the computer, and I rarely if ever burn audio CD's on the AW's internal drive... but I still got the CD-RW option for both of my AW's. They're useful for far more than just burning audio CD's - without it, backing up HDD data is more difficult (you'd have to use a SCSI drive - either HD or CD-RW or MO) and you wouldn't be able to import audio from audio CD's... So IMO, NOT having a CD-RW drive is a handicap. And adding a CD-RW adds WAY too much to the price of the VS series stuff - I can't understand how / why Roland charges so much for their external drives when CD-RW prices are so reasonable these days...
I am eagerly awaiting this new Tascam chiefly because of the MIDI sequencer alongside the audio tracks, however I must repeat that I really like the Roland because of its enormous bang for the buck and its sheer number of features. Chances are, you think it hasn't got something because you don't see it upfront, and you just read in the glossary and there it is, hidden amongst screens. I keep on discovering new features at a rate of 3 per week, and I've had it for 3 years.
Last one I discovered, yesterday, was that I can copy mixer settings such as level, pan, EQ, sends, etc., from a recorded track or input channel to another. Or I can edit offline the automation settings. Just examples.
On-screen editing, copy/paste stuff and such is surgically spotless, to the micro-millisecond.
This is quite true, and will probably be true of just about any of the current SIAB's on the market. There's so many features in them now days that they can take a while to master... and new ways of doing things will pop up the more you use them.
Of course Roland is no Studer and no Neve. The sound quality is good but not stellar. However, I cannot afford stellar quality. If I could, I would, but I am an independent producer and not a commercial studio, and a studio-in-a-box offers me the possibility of actually making it happen. If I was to say no to compromises and only buy top quality, I'd simply be doing absolutely nothing at this time. No production, no recording, and no mixing, because simply I cannot afford bigger budgets.
So welcome Roland with all its shortcomings (very little of them, actually).
Well, of course the SIAB's are not SSLs / Neves / Studers... but I bet that with a great song and arrangement, inspired performances and some good engineering and production chops (and some well chosen outboard gear) you can do a recording on any of the current SIAB's that the average listener wouldn't be able to tell apart from a SSL / Studer tracked song. People (listeners / the record buying public) really don't care WHAT the thing was recorded on, they care about the SONG. As the old saying goes, no one ever hummed the console! So pick the tools that YOU like and make the most of them!
Phil O'Keefe
Sound Sanctuary Recording
Riverside CA
http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html
email: pokeefe777@msn.com
|
|
Top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
