I Need Real Help with this Gear stuff..Back to Basics 101:

[ric4hitsongs]

I am a computer tech specialized in networking and hardware systems. I would like to ask if using a stand alone system is a better situation compared to a software based rig? something in the range of 200 or so.

[rld]

I think the most important question is what kind of person are you?
No..I don't mean that ...I mean are you computer savvy or do you not understand how they work?
If the thought of opening up a computer or installing cards, drivers, software, etc. scares you,
you may want to look at a stand alone recorder.
Think about that for a bit.

[ric4hitsongs]

ummm excuse me?...

[Len911]

Software is basically more bang for the buck. There are many limitations in a standalone system. I believe there are even free software daws out there, can't vouch for them or their limitations. Of course with a software system you need an interface. Dollar for dollar though, there is much more value in a software based system.

[cardell]

I'm enjoying the software approach. It's just so flexible.

However...I also use a Zoom H4 to record acoustic tracks because of how quiet the tracks sound (no computer fan noise etc..).

Stuart

[rld]

ummm excuse me?...

Well, in your initial post you didn't say you were a computer tech so I was wondering if a computer was right for you.
Apparently so.
Like the other responses said, hands down a computer based DAW is the most powerful, flexible way to go.

[billg1]

I think if you're recording mostly real instruments (as opposes to VSTs) a strong case can be made for tracking in a standalone and mixing ITB. IMO if you have quality preamps & good outboard gear it's much simpler and more creative tracking on a dedicated recorder/mixer (actual faders etc.) and then dumping the tracks into the DAW of your choice.
it depends on what you're used to.

[mojobone]

The answer probably rests with your tolerance for latency, rather than for computers themselves. I record mostly live instruments, using software, but I have direct monitoring built into my audio interface. Nice thing about hardware, though; you plug it in, turn it on, hit record-you're in business, no naming a project, generating a track or tracks, selecting inputs/outputs nor even waiting to boot up....

[t4mh]

I am a computer tech specialized in networking and hardware systems. I would like to ask if using a stand alone system is a better situation compared to a software based rig? something in the range of 200 or so.

The most powerful computer music systems are made up of computers networked together. That said networking computers for audio and composition is nothing like simple Lan or Enterprise networking with IP and DHCP. These computers should be somewhat "heavy weights" in terms of performance. When you ask, "something in the range of 200 or so", I'm not sure what you are asking. $200? If this is what you mean, I don't see it happenin' and you should probably think about adding a zero to each machine... Please explain.

Keith

[mojobone]

If you're recording a single live instrument or a small acoustic ensemble, you can get decent to good results with a Zoom H2, ($179, street) but you wouldn't have much miking flexibility and you'd still need at least one other machine for overdubbing/mixing. A Zoom R16 ($399, street) works standalone OR with a computer; that and a couple of microphones, stands, cables, a set of headphones and an SD card would make a good starter outfit.