Is computer recording really worth all the hassle?

[thebrig]

I recently been thinking about getting a decent interface so I can record my band, and make some of my own music as well.

I've looked at the [b]Focusrite Sapphire Pro 40[/b] along with a few other similar interfaces.

On the face of it, they seem to be fine for what I want, 16 tracks simultaneous recording, but I have spent weeks researching, going on countless forums,
and I am now totally confused, and at the point of thinking I will be wasting my money!

I already have [b]Sonar 8 Producer[/b] installed on my laptop, and use an [b]Edirol SPS-66[/b] interface.
Luckily, my laptop does have a Firewire connection, but I still have all sorts of problems with latency etc.

My laptop specs are:
[b]AMD Turion64 x 2 TL-58 1.90 GHz
RAM 4GB
Vista 32 bit[/b]

As I've stated, after visiting countless forums, it seems that almost everyone experiences problems despite their setup.
I have even been told by salespeople in stores where I have intended to purchase an interface from them, that it might not work very well.

Firewire always seems to be the way to go according to all the advice, and yet, where do you find a laptop these days with firewire, and they don't even have an express card slot any more.

I do realise that I will need a more powerful machine to have any chance of trouble free recording, so where do I get one with everything I need, and will cost nearer £2,000 than £1,000?

The other option I have considered is something like the [b]Zoom R24[/b], so I can record directly into it, and transfer the tracks into Sonar to edit.
A bit long winded though, and I would only be able to recorded 8 tracks at a time.

Advice please.

[Blademan_98]

I agree, buying all that for your laptop when there are so many dedicated rigs around.

I started by buying a Korg D16. You can only record 8 tracks at a time but that is ok with me.

I have recorded a full band 'live' with that and dumped down to a cd.

I am hoping to upgrade to a more modern system soon (with usb for data transfer).

I prefer to edit on a PC for ease of use but love just taking a single box along to record with.

Blademan

[paul_5]

16 tracks simultaneously into a laptop is a pretty tall order, are you sure that you nee to everything all at once? I've never recorded more than 9 at once, and that was with a VERY picky drummer. As long as people don't mind playing to a click, then overdubbing is the way forward.

It might seem like a lot of money up front, but the only alternatives are a) book studio time and pay a similar figure for a single lot of recording, or buy an old tape machine - which will cost less initially, but at roughly £50 for 20 minutes (and all the outboard kit like compressors and a mixer) it's really expensive, this is why computer recording is the most popular option. Plus it's sooooo much easier to edit on a big screen than start splicing tape etc...

[lowdown]

The problem is people tend to overlook the main thing - Computer spec.
If you are going to do heavy duty recording, get a heavy duty Audio ready spec Computer.
Research what pc/mac works with what audio interface etc.
It really is not one shoe fits all.

Processors, quality Ram, External drives for the Audio files, dedicated graphic cards, Mobos etc...it all plays a part with the latency thing.
Vista is not the best OS on the problem front.

If you google Audio Tweeks, there are plenty of sites for easy fine tuning of the OS....
Turning of eye candy and various other rubbish that comes with windows. Anti Virus software and all other amounts of nonsense.

A good USB interface is just as good as Firewire [but then again research will tell you what ones]
Problem with Laptops is you are going to miss out on PCI/PCIe Audio cards. They in general tend to out perform USB/FW.

DAW software often gets blamed for problems, Cubase is crap. Sonar is crap...use Live etc....
But quite often down to the Machine.

So in a word - if you are on a budget it can be a hassle.


Garry

Edited March 6, 2011 by lowdown

[Bilbo]

Its like anything. If you have £2k to spend, you will want kit that costs £3K and if you had £10K you woudl want kit that costs £15K. THere is a great book I have called Guerilla Home Recording by Karl Coryatt that has great ideas about maxmising the potential of low budget kit. I think it is worth it as it adds to the creative process etc.

[url="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Guerilla-Home-Recording-Studio-Leonard/dp/1423454464/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1299411182&sr=1-1"]Guerilla Home Recording[/url]

[EdwardHimself]

You are going to need a better computer, preferably a PC. I would say £1000 is enough to get a PC that is up to the job, maybe £1200 if you want to do dual monitors.

Edited March 6, 2011 by EdwardHimself

[Beedster]

I've recently been through the same process and started a thread here [url="http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=97039&hl="]http://basschat.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=97039&hl=[/url]

There's some EXTREMELY useful advice from a lot of knowledgeable folks in there. And Bilbo's post is bang on, you always want kit that costs 50% more than you have to spend. Just remember that it might cost 50% more, but it WON'T be 50% better. The price/benefit curve flattens off very quickly with studio gear.

Good luck

C

[ironside1966]

It all depends on what you want, if you just want something to sketch a few ideas on hardware unit would be fine but most of the budget hardware records have cheap preamps were as the Focusrite preamps and digital converters are far better than a unit of these price deservers so the actual recorded sound quality is better.
The best investment you can get is time learning how and where to place microphones will pay dividends in the end

[Wil]

I use an old Mac G4 I bought used for £80 (it came loaded with Traction, which is a fairly decent DAW), a Tapco Link firewire interface which cost around £150, and a Rhode M3 condensor mic which cost around £90. Everything worked a treat straight away, no latency issues or anything like that, although it does struggle to run plugins like Amplitube unless I render the tracks first so its not computing everything in real time. I find recording with a computer far, far easier than using an all in one unit, being able to edit waveforms on screen with a mouse is fantastic.

So, you dont need to spend a fortune. I recorded this the other day with my setup, just to give you an idea of the sound quality:

[url="http://wilmiles.bandcamp.com/track/unfinished-track"]http://wilmiles.bandcamp.com/track/unfinished-track[/url]

[redstriper]

I use a cheap and basic Toshiba Satellite A110 laptop with an Alesis multimix 16 desk.
I've been using it for over 4 years and recorded countless sessions, often with 16 tracks at once into cubase.
Never had any trouble with latency or anything else, apart from when I first started and was using the mini firewire socket on the laptop.
I added a PCI card which gives 2 full size firewire sockets and I've not had a problem since doing that.
I just finished an album on this set up, using nothing else except some very cheap mics, you can hear some tracks [url="http://myspace.com/tacsiband"]here[/url].

[lowdown]

A couple of links here that might be of use.
One is for checking latency on your machine, and how it performs [or don't]
[url="http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml"]http://www.thesycon.de/deu/latency_check.shtml[/url]

The other is all the tweeks to get your PC up to top performance for Audio recording.
It says for VISTA - but is good for W7 as well.
[url="http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/ts/detail.php?Index=31969&Keyword=vista+optimizedfalse"]http://www.sweetwater.com/sweetcare/ts/det...+optimizedfalse[/url]


Garry

Edited March 6, 2011 by lowdown

[flyfisher]

If you ask about PC requirements for a DAW these days you'll probably get a list of specs that were not even available 4-5 years ago, or at least nowhere near affordable, but people have been using PCs for multitrack recording for ages now. Heck, I was editing video on a PC 10 years ago yet when you ask about it today people still say you need a 'top-spec' machine (yes, I know that covers a whole host of generalisations, but I'd argue the basic principle is true).

I've been using a bog-standard Dell Optiplex 3GHz P4 running WinXP and 1.5GB RAM to record up to 9 tracks simultaneously and replay up to 16, all over a firewire link. I've not encountered any latency problems and the "resources" indicator in my DAW software rarely goes over 50%.

It can be done.

[thisnameistaken]

The most I've done is 10 simultaneous tracks via my M-Audio Firewire box into my desktop PC. It's not a particularly high spec, an early Core2Duo chip, 2Gb of RAM, the drives are are bog-standard SATA jobs and not striped or anything so I was only recording to one of them, and I had zero problems.

Currently tracking trombone parts on a tune with... 35 tracks currently, and having no issues with disk access here either. In fact looking at the usage monitor I could probably stream 100 simultaneous tracks from this disk before I ran into problems.

As for notebooks with Firewire, the Macbook Pros all have a FW800 port. I just bought one yesterday for pretty much that reason.

[sshorepunk]

I've had several PC based set ups, all had problems of sorts!
Bought an old Mac G5 for about £300 (dual 1.8 ghz, 4 gig RAM, two 500 gig HD's) then a used Digi 002 (I like hands on approach, beats using a mouse on faders) and finally a copy of Pro tools LE8 when it came out. The whole lot cost about £800
I already had a pair of Tannoy reveals and a BIG monitor (would prefer dual monitors though)
It runs without fault, has done for two years!
The only time it screws up is if I run a demo of a processor hungry plug in with a track with lots of tracks, but that is down to the G5 being fairly old now. I could spend a few more £'s and get another used machine that would hamndle more, but i just dont need it!

Tony

[endorka]

I used an ancient Pentium III 450 with 512 megs of RAM to record a gig lasting several hours last night.

Recorded 10 channels at 44.1KHz 24bit simultaneously, using about 75% of CPU resources, and it worked great.

My card is an M-Audio Delta 1010LT, which has zero latency monitoring, so latency is not an issue when overdubbing.

Jennifer

[lowdown]

[quote name='flyfisher' post='1151616' date='Mar 6 2011, 04:46 PM']I've been using a bog-standard Dell Optiplex 3GHz P4 running WinXP and 1.5GB RAM to record up to 9 tracks simultaneously and replay up to 16, all over a firewire link. I've not encountered any latency problems and the "resources" indicator in my DAW software rarely goes over 50%.

It can be done.[/quote]

Yep it can be done, and has been done for years, but track count recording and the amount of Audio files/tracks have not been the problem..
[Apart from Audio interface limitations etc]
Its the use of plug ins, VST's, soft synths etc... they get heavy on the system....
Of course there are work a rounds, rendering, bouncing , freezing....

These days vendors are upping software specs to match the computer specs, and it all starts to become heavy weather...
which i think is the OP's take on it all. And his DAW [Sonar] likes to take its toll on the machine....


Garry

[thebrig]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1151853' date='Mar 6 2011, 08:33 PM']Yep it can be done, and has been done for years, but track count recording and the amount of Audio files/tracks have not been the problem..
[Apart from Audio interface limitations etc]
Its the use of plug ins, VST's, soft synths etc... they get heavy on the system....
Of course there are work a rounds, rendering, bouncing , freezing....

These days vendors are upping software specs to match the computer specs, and it all starts to become heavy weather...
which i think is the OP's take on it all. And his DAW [Sonar] likes to take its toll on the machine....


Garry[/quote]
Thanks for the info Garry, and also to all the basschatters for the advice and help, it's very much appreciated.

Would I be better off ditching Sonar and perhaps try using something a little less heavy on the system,
maybe Reaper which I also have?

[plumbob]

If your not confident about the PC route you could always go for a Roland VS2480 , which is a far more traditional hands on mixer feel , almost bullet proof.

Our sax player has one we recorded a few tracks a couple of years ago , came out ok I thought, you can have a listen or watch the video here to get an idea.

[url="http://www.myspace.com/wearetherelics"]http://www.myspace.com/wearetherelics[/url]

[lowdown]

[quote name='thebrig' post='1151876' date='Mar 6 2011, 08:56 PM']Thanks for the info Garry, and also to all the basschatters for the advice and help, it's very much appreciated.

Would I be better off ditching Sonar and perhaps try using something a little less heavy on the system,
maybe Reaper which I also have?[/quote]


No need to ditch Sonar [ its a great DAW with plenty of features, and lots of good on board stuff]
But you might want to tweek up the Laptop. Vista with S8 does have its problems, but its easily fixable.
First of go and check out my second link - its the sweetwater one...its aimed at Vista & Audio.
Your Laptop should do the job what you are aiming for.

Have you got all the update patches for Sonar 8 [ i think there are a couple for that version]

Garry

[thebrig]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1151940' date='Mar 6 2011, 09:58 PM']No need to ditch Sonar [ its a great DAW with plenty of features, and lots of good on board stuff]
But you might want to tweek up the Laptop. Vista with S8 does have its problems, but its easily fixable.
First of go and check out my second link - its the sweetwater one...its aimed at Vista & Audio.
Your Laptop should do the job what you are aiming for.

Have you got all the update patches for Sonar 8 [ i think there are a couple for that version]

Garry[/quote]
First thing I'm going to do is install windows7, 64 bit version, after speaking to a few computer boffins, they seem to think it should make a big difference to the performance, and it would allow me to add another 2GB of RAM if needed.

[Blademan_98]

[quote name='thebrig' post='1151958' date='Mar 6 2011, 10:11 PM']First thing I'm going to do is install windows7, 64 bit version, after speaking to a few computer boffins, they seem to think it should make a big difference to the performance, and it would allow me to add another 2GB of RAM if needed.[/quote]

Does your hardware support the extra ram?

The OS will but thats only if the motherboard can take it.

Just something you may wish to research before purchasing.

[Dood]

[quote name='thebrig' post='1151876' date='Mar 6 2011, 08:56 PM']Would I be better off ditching Sonar and perhaps try using something a little less heavy on the system,
maybe Reaper which I also have?[/quote]

Reaper is fantastic. I love it and yes, it's nice and light on the system too.

[quote name='thebrig' post='1151958' date='Mar 6 2011, 10:11 PM']First thing I'm going to do is install windows7, 64 bit version, after speaking to a few computer boffins, they seem to think it should make a big difference to the performance, and it would allow me to add another 2GB of RAM if needed.[/quote]

A Dual Core Processor computer (for example Intel's Core 2 Duo) will benefit from running a 64bit OS and yes, - in my machine, having a mere 4Gb RAM installed - the 64bit OS can address all of it, whereas a 32bit version can not. One thing to take in to consideration is that to make full use of the benefits of a 64bit OS, you will need to make sure that your Interface is running 64bit drivers, your DAW is a 64bit version (Reaper is available in 64bit thankfully) - and then if you chose to run plugins in the DAW too - then 64bit is the way to go. However, you can still run 32 bit software, drivers and plugins on a 64bit OS. W7 has 'bridging' to enable it.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='lowdown' post='1151853' date='Mar 6 2011, 08:33 PM']These days vendors are upping software specs to match the computer specs, and it all starts to become heavy weather...
which i think is the OP's take on it all. And his DAW [Sonar] likes to take its toll on the machine....[/quote]

That's a fair point, and one that has bugged me ever since I used Visicalc on an Apple II with a CPU running at 1MHz - yes, 40x [u]slower[/u] than the PC on which I'm writing this. Sure, it didn't have fancy graphics or 'windows' but it did most of the stuff that I now use Excel for.

Software bloat is a well known problem. If only the phenomenally increased power of computing hardware had actually been delivered to the end-user instead of being soaked up by layer and layers of ever more complex operating software . . . . but that's probably a digression too far.

Anyone who has installed something like Ubuntu on an old and past-it-for-Windows 650MHz Pentium III PC might be amazed at how it suddenly springs into life and is a perfectly capable machine for general office and browsing applications. In short, if you have performance problems, look first at the combination of software running on your PC.

[DaveB]

Another quick thing i'd recommend is try the programme (if you can) before you buy. I tried the latest Cubase and Sonar and hated them. Really annoyingly got on very well with Logic, which is frustrating as I don't have a mac!

[lowdown]

[quote name='thebrig' post='1151958' date='Mar 6 2011, 10:11 PM']First thing I'm going to do is install windows7, 64 bit version, after speaking to a few computer boffins, they seem to think it should make a big difference to the performance, and it would allow me to add another 2GB of RAM if needed.[/quote]


i went W7 64 OS and 64 bit machine,
Quad core AMD & 8 gig of good RAM, and it was not that expensive, although that was desktop.
To be honest that would be a great move. Most of the DAW's all have the option of 64 bit software,
And most of the Audio interfaces have 64 bit drivers.
If you need any help PM your email, or if you want to chat on the phone no problem.




Garry