Digital Recorder OR Recording Interface?

[wren hinds]

Howdy folks, thought i'd suss out public opinion on recording interfaces... So up until now my go-to recording setup has been a standalone portastudio type multitrack recorder (namely the Zoom R24) - I am looking at upgrading my setup mostly as I'm keen on better preamps and workflow. I've never used a standard computer based interface such as the Focusrite Scarlett etc, but I can see how it would be a pretty efficient tool, I'm used to recording on my portastudio classic overdub style and then once completed I take all the WAV's over to a DAW on my PC for post production and editing, I have developed a nice way of working like this where I don't need to stare at a screen during the tracking and recording phases. Now as I said, I've never used anything like the Focusrite's etc but from reviews I hear the quality is pristine with no hiss, my other option would be to stick to my tried and trusted way of doing things and upgrade from my Zoom R24 to the Tascam Model 24. What are your folks' thoughts on this topic and what direction would you go in? Also, how simple are these audio interfaces to use? And is the workflow on a Scarlett or the like worth looking into that route rather... I must say, I do love the idea of just carrying on in the more traditional 'analog' approach, but figured I'd start a conversation around this topic 🙂

[Rudy4]

Iv'e posted pretty extensively about my workflow methods. I also use an R24 for audio capture and transfer wavs to my PC for post-editing. There are so many advantages to doing this that I can't envision ever wanting to chain myself to a PC for recording tracks. I have used the R24 to record full bands, so having 8 inputs allows me to do that. To get that same number of inputs will require a more expensive audio interface than what you need for doing edits on the PC.

I'm curious what you're using to do your edits. It sounds like you're unfamiliar with using an interface, but I don't know how you would handle D/A conversion and monitoring your mixes if you don't use an interface with your PC. If you could clarify that it might be easier to offer suggestions.

I know some folks use the R24 as their interface, but I much prefer using a separate interface.

The R24 preamps are serviceable as long as you don't use the last 10% of gain adjustment, so that is one thing for folks to consider. Other than direct in I only use condenser mics and they come in to the pres much hotter than most dynamics, so they give me a much cleaner recorded signal.

I considered getting one of the new Zoom Livetrak series recorders and they are reviewed as having better preamps. There are a couple of things that I think the R24 is much better at, so I'll continue to use my R24. The track swap feature is pretty much essential for me when doing multi-tracking / overdubbing, and the Livetrak doesn't have that feature.

[wren hinds]

Yeah, so basically my workflow goes like this... I do all of my tracking and overdubbing solely on the R24, once all my overdubbing is done I'll send the WAV's over to my PC with a USB. I then drop all the WAV files into my DAW (currently FL12 Studio) - and then my mixing and production goes on in FL Studio as I can make use of some amazing sounding VST's etc. Once I'm happy, I export the track straight outta FL Studio and that's it. So I work in phases...

Phase 1= Recording/Overdubbing on the standalone unit (NO SCREENS OR PC's REQUIRED)

Phase 2= Dropping WAV's into FL Studio DAW and mixing/producing the track there.

[rick-slo]

Good gear at all points of the recording process does add up. Personally I have a designated recording space and record music directly into the computer's hard drives via a DAW. I find that work flow easier and quicker. Of course it's analog until it hits the AD converter. At that point I do not send anything back out to analog gear.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by wren hinds

Howdy folks, thought i'd suss out public opinion on recording interfaces... So up until now my go-to recording setup has been a standalone portastudio type multitrack recorder (namely the Zoom R24) - I am looking at upgrading my setup mostly as I'm keen on better preamps and workflow. I've never used a standard computer based interface such as the Focusrite Scarlett etc, but I can see how it would be a pretty efficient tool, I'm used to recording on my portastudio classic overdub style and then once completed I take all the WAV's over to a DAW on my PC for post production and editing, I have developed a nice way of working like this where I don't need to stare at a screen during the tracking and recording phases. Now as I said, I've never used anything like the Focusrite's etc but from reviews I hear the quality is pristine with no hiss, my other option would be to stick to my tried and trusted way of doing things and upgrade from my Zoom R24 to the Tascam Model 24. What are your folks' thoughts on this topic and what direction would you go in? Also, how simple are these audio interfaces to use? And is the workflow on a Scarlett or the like worth looking into that route rather... I must say, I do love the idea of just carrying on in the more traditional 'analog' approach, but figured I'd start a conversation around this topic ��

There is no simple short answer because the are far to many variable AND everything actually depends on what your ultimate goals are, and how much money you are comfortable putting towards "upgrading"

You say you are interested in "better pre amps" OK but the question is why ? Are you not satisfied with the sound of your current set up ? If not what do think your recordings are lacking, or want do you want to improve ?

Also,,,, you don't mention what mic's you are using? I mention this because #1 depending on what mics you are actually using and if your "upgrade budget" is limited , then in general (not always) but in general, better mics are going to be more of noticeable improvement than better pre amps .

Since you are already using a DAW and computer
Honestly with and interface there is less steps and not that much workflow difference, in recording straight into a DAW via an interface ,,,, vs. recording on a standalone recorder then transferring digital flies into a DAW...
As rick-slo noted,, it is all analog until you hit the AD converters,,,, so you are not really gaining or loosing any traditional analog work flow either way............

An interface workflow wise, is going to be the same as your Zoom on the front end, plugging in mic/s getting levels, etc. etc. ...... The difference is you will already be in the DAW for editing and mixing. What you'll actually be watching while recording is basically the same, watching the levels... It makes no difference whether the mixer is physical or virtual. The idea that it is somehow different is mostly imagination...


IMO (again depending on your budget) I don't think just switching into a Focusrite Scarlet series, will give you any significant noticeable improvement. Given they are entry level.........
Yes perhaps the pre's are a bit better/cleaner and perhaps the converters are a bit better than the Zoom . But the real question is how much better ?

Again depending on budget If it were me I would look at mics first,,,, then consider an interface but I would be looking at mid level and up interfaces, not entry level .. YMMV

[wren hinds]

As far as mic's go, I mostly use dynamics at the moment, SM58 that was once my dad's, and an AKG D5, both these mic's are fantastic.

I think there's a huge difference between a real mixer and a virtual mixer, I would opt for physical over virtual anyday just to not strain my eyes from staring into a screen during the pivotal parts of the recording process, also excessive screentime can lead to headaches as well.

I do agree that perhaps an audio interface direct into a DAW is probably quite an efficient way to work, however a huge part of me just wants to reserve the tracking and overdubbing phase without the use of a computer, especially for creativity sake.

Check out all my previous albums here, all recorded with the Zoom R24 - http://wrenhinds.blogspot.com/

I guess I'm kinda hoping, if I go with the Tascam Model 24 as my upgrade, the preamps might be a little better (less hiss, especially with so many layers- I usually overdub up to 24 Tracks or more!!!)

[TBman]

The problem I had with recording direct into a computer was the computer's fan which always seemed to come on in the middle of a recording. So I record using a Zoom H5, with two external mics.

[Rudy4]

Originally Posted by wren hinds

As far as mic's go, I mostly use dynamics at the moment, SM58 that was once my dad's, and an AKG D5, both these mic's are fantastic.

I think there's a huge difference between a real mixer and a virtual mixer, I would opt for physical over virtual anyday just to not strain my eyes from staring into a screen during the pivotal parts of the recording process, also excessive screentime can lead to headaches as well.

I do agree that perhaps an audio interface direct into a DAW is probably quite an efficient way to work, however a huge part of me just wants to reserve the tracking and overdubbing phase without the use of a computer, especially for creativity sake.

Check out all my previous albums here, all recorded with the Zoom R24 - http://wrenhinds.blogspot.com/

I guess I'm kinda hoping, if I go with the Tascam Model 24 as my upgrade, the preamps might be a little better (less hiss, especially with so many layers- I usually overdub up to 24 Tracks or more!!!)

Any "equipment upgrades" you might be considering won't be of much significance if you're using dynamic mics.

If you're getting "hiss" from your pres then your gain settings are too high. With the R24 (and probably the Tascam as well) you'll continue to have that problem until you get some decent condenser mics.

You have to consider your entire recording chain, starting with your instrument and how old the strings are, and proceding through all of the audio capture components, the first of which is your microphone. If you hobble your recordings in the first few steps of the process then you'll need to accept the ramifications of doing that for the entire project. Better pres or a new recorder won't help you achieve better recordings if it has nothing to work with.

I speak from experience.

[KevWind]

Originally Posted by wren hinds

As far as mic's go, I mostly use dynamics at the moment, SM58 that was once my dad's, and an AKG D5, both these mic's are fantastic.

I think there's a huge difference between a real mixer and a virtual mixer, I would opt for physical over virtual anyday just to not strain my eyes from staring into a screen during the pivotal parts of the recording process, also excessive screentime can lead to headaches as well.

I do agree that perhaps an audio interface direct into a DAW is probably quite an efficient way to work, however a huge part of me just wants to reserve the tracking and overdubbing phase without the use of a computer, especially for creativity sake.

Check out all my previous albums here, all recorded with the Zoom R24 - http://wrenhinds.blogspot.com/

I guess I'm kinda hoping, if I go with the Tascam Model 24 as my upgrade, the preamps might be a little better (less hiss, especially with so many layers- I usually overdub up to 24 Tracks or more!!!)

To clarify a bit , I used physical mixer (Digi 002) for about 7 years so I am not unaware of the actual difference.
Every one has their personal subjective perspective for which there is no right or wrong, only different.

If you subjectively opt for physical over the virtual thats fine, but understand it sounds like you are making that preference based on only having mixed on the physical, and simply (imagining mixing on the virtual) BUT hey can't argue personal subjective tastes they are what they are ...

I was simply attempting to point out that your objection or aversion to virtual mixing is subjective, not objective
I was suggesting that objectively, the difference between a physical mixer and virtual mixer is mostly the tactile sensation of moving the faders and knobs .. but is not really all that different in the actual work flow (which was your question ) .
And I don't know what you consider "pivotal parts" but for example during recording (which is what I consider pivotal") I don't stair into the screen... Yes I check for levels in the virtual meters but we are only talking a few seconds . And I am not sitting at the desk or computer either when recording
Mixing virtually is not inherently better or worse It is simply what you make of it That I all I am attempting to relate
Unfortunately I am not familiar with either of those mixers so I really could not say what if any potential improvement might be... Good luck, Nice music BTW

[nightchef]

Originally Posted by Rudy4

Any "equipment upgrades" you might be considering won't be of much significance if you're using dynamic mics.

There's nothing wrong with dynamic mics as such. SM58s do suffer from a midrange overemphasis and closed high end, but you won't run into those problems with higher-end dynamics such as the EV RE20 or Sennheiser 441. However, at those prices you can also get a very decent condenser mic.

The biggest reason to use condenser mics over dynamics with budget recording systems is that condensers tend to need less gain, and budget preamps often offer relatively low gain (and may not sound their best when you're pushing them to their limits).

I've been recording to a computer-based DAW system since about 2000. I can't imagine going back. The flexibility is addictive. However, if you're the kind of person who works best when the stages in a project are kept strictly separate, that very flexibility might seem like a minus. With a DAW system, the lines between recording, editing, and mixing are inherently blurred; you can find yourself doing any or all of those things at any point in a project, and if you want to draw hard lines between them you have to do it yourself--the system won't do it for you. For me that's a feature; for you, it might be a bug.

[islandguitar]

I listened to some of your stuff.....very nice.....I don't think you need to change anything!!!

[FrankHudson]

I sort of worked your way in two eras. I originally tracked with a cassette portastudio and edited/mixed/mastered on an early computer DAW. Around the turn of the century I outfitted my studio space with an interface an started recording digitally, but I would then export those files to edit/mix/master on my somewhat improved DAW.

That's still a workflow I use today when I record in my studio space. It may be arbitrary and subjective, but that division (which significantly includes the physical location) helps fence off the two kinds of working.

I've used a stand-alone digital recorder sometimes for "field recordings" and occasional demos done remotely that can survive sometimes in finished projects. But that's my everyday workflow.

To my mind there are no advantages to a standalone digital portastudio like the one you own in a studio recording situation other than you already own it and know how to use it. I'll come back to to that point later. The Focusrite interface I use in my studio space has knobs and digital level meters. I can look it it or my screen when setting gain. I never "mix" as in actively change levels while recording unless something was not set right before the take.

I could be wrong on this (there are more knowledgeable folks here and others with stronger opinions--and one hopes these two groups overlap ) but I wouldn't expect that the advertised "better preamps" between a lower priced interface to make a huge difference from your standalone digital device. Mics, mic placement, room you record in--those can make a difference I expect you'd hear most easily.

I use a mix of lower priced to mid-priced condenser and dynamic microphones nowadays. The experts here sometimes tell me I'm wrong to use, even prefer, dynamic mics. They may be right. But what's clear is that condensers add a different sound and response to input, which I value too. If your interface does phantom power (needed for condensers) you might want to spend some money on one or two mics first. If you have phantom power and your current interface gets noisy as you up the gain for your dynamics, you might want to try a CloudLifter to boost the level on them.

Hope any of this is helpful.

[Glennwillow]

I used a Roland VS-1880 for a fair number of years. I still have it, but haven't used it for quite a while. I liked working on that machine and probably would not have changed if it weren't for my son (who also had a VS-1880 of his own), who set me up with a DAW computer recording system around Cubase.

Since he spent the money to give me this gift, I felt obligated to try it. Once I got used to it and all the advantages, just as Nightchef notes, I can't imagine going back.

Regarding the mixer interface, I use the interface on the computer screen. By using the automation features, I have never felt any need to go back to a physical mixer. I can be much more accurate today with the detailed automation in Cubase than I could have ever been with a physical mixer.

A lot of people don't want to deal with the stress of learning how to use a DAW. I certainly understand that. A lot of people want the tactile feel of a physical mixer. I understand that, too.

A local friend was asking me about all this recording stuff. Even though I recommended he use a computer-based DAW, he ended up buying a 24-channel digital Tascam DP-24 unit from a friend who was no longer using it. You can make commercially acceptable recordings on a unit like this. And as Barry notes, there is no fan noise from a computer. There should not be excessive hiss or noise in a unit like this if the gain structure is right. My recordings on my VS-1880 were always very quiet.

Best of luck to you.

- Glenn

[rick-slo]

Virtually silent computers are practically the norm these days. Use a moderate CPU (will be plenty powerful enough), motherboard's on board graphics and solid state drives.

[Glennwillow]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Virtually silent computers are practically the norm these days. Use a moderate CPU (will be plenty powerful enough), motherboard's on board graphics and solid state drives.

Yes, this is my experience, too. I record essentially right next to my computer CPU and I never pick up any fan noise. And solid-state hard drives are wonderful, quiet and very fast.

My computer is just a Dell computer with a good, powerful processor, because I do engineering work on this computer, too. But my computer is 5 years old now and there is nothing special about it.

- Glenn