Zoom R24 - using it as a standalone recorder/tracker

[Numerov]

Has anyone used the Zoom R24 as a standalone recorder/tracker?
(I am not interested in its use as computer interface for recording/tracking)

If you have used the Zoom R24 as a standalone recorder/tracker - please tell me your good and not so good experiences with this piece of kit.

Were you productive with it?

Did you mix/edit on the R24 after your tracks were recorded on to it
or did you transfer your tracks to a computer system and use a DAW for mixing/editing?

Thanks Numerov

[Zombie1965]

I tried the zoom 1608, couldn't get on with it as a stand alone, so used to export the recordings to my DAW for mixing. My productivity Improves after i swapped to a mixer/ interface and started recording straight to DAW. I used a Alesis Multimix 16 for a good long time. Now I'm considering a Behringer x18 air as a 18 channel interface to record my live shows.

Im guessing its a similar expereance on the R24. Were all different though

[Numerov]

[quote name='Zombie1965' timestamp='1482109558' post='3197756']
I tried the zoom 1608, couldn't get on with it as a stand alone, so used to export the recordings to my DAW for mixing. My productivity Improves after i swapped to a mixer/ interface and started recording straight to DAW. I used a Alesis Multimix 16 for a good long time. Now I'm considering a Behringer x18 air as a 18 channel interface to record my live shows.

Im guessing its a similar expereance on the R24. Were all different though
[/quote]

Could you explain why you found recording/tracking on the Zoom 1608 difficult?
I'm only interested in the recording/tracking side of things on the standalone machine.

Thanks

[Zombie1965]

It was mainly just the workflow and having to remember if you were in bank 1-8 or 9-16 on the faders.

Also editing was difficult if you were trying to play and use the mixer at the same time.

The menus and operation on Zoom devices is notoriously difficult, the 1608 was no exception to that rule and I often found myself lost in its many layers of menu's, and the small screen didn't help.

Punch ins worked well if you were doing Virtual takes but not if you were replacing the original take. Many accidental erased tracks occurred. I think this may have been me doing something wrong. but I never got to the bottom of it. Mixing a "V" take was more difficult than an original take but i cannot remember the reason why.

I didn't like the built in pre amps a great deal, they were a bit too sterile for my liking, but far from the worst i have heard. The on board compressor was difficult to work with and seamed to be either to hard or to soft. but the end results when mixed sounded OK, if a little hollow and LIVE sounding.

I don't think I was ever 100% happy with 1 recording produced with just the 1608, as a "studio" and used to take the tracks and mix on my DAW later. They weren't terrible, but just not my best work. I made a few live show recordings for bands and they liked the results, but the mixdowns always sounded a bit live, even if i tracked a band with overdubs.
However bunging the tracks into logic and mixing them there, I was always pretty happy with the results, and that "live" sound used to vanish. I mainly used the 1608 this way.

I ultimately wanted to record more than 8 tracks simultaneously and found this the most limiting factor and the main reason I abandoned my zoom.

The on board headphone amp was under powered and if trying to record live drums you could not here the mix in the headphones without running through some kind of External booster/ headphone amp. I used a Behringer HA4000 4 way headphone amp with it(£20) so no big deal

That was on a 1608 though. I'm just guessing the R24 is an evolution of it.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Zombie1965