TAXI.com

Ok, I'm buying one of the two next week and I need feedback. Which do you think produces the most professional sound quality?? Any cons for either? Glitches in either machine? Anyone have samples of recordings from either?Thanks!

Jan 23, 2009, 1:04pm, girlfriendx wrote:Ok, I'm buying one of the two next week and I need feedback. Which do you think produces the most professional sound quality?? Any cons for either? Glitches in either machine? Anyone have samples of recordings from either?Thanks!I was wondering how to respond to this question when it dawned on me, there is no easy way to tell you that recording quality isn't actually about equipment. Every recording device can sound perfectly acceptable, if a competent person is engineering, and another competent person or group is performing. Either machine will produce professional sound quality, as long as someone is creating and recording professional music. It's never about the tools, unless you're trying to get someone to spend their money on your studio. Then you want to have big ass tools to show off. Personally, I have no idea why anyone would ever buy a stand alone machine again, when computers, software, & knowledge are so available and AMAZING. I realize I am biased, but what could one of those machines do that a computer w software couldn't do even better? I guess the only thing I can imagine, is that with a stand-alone, you don't need to learn how to step around as many messy software updates. I've been recording for a long time now and my honest opinion is this - if someone asked me to pick one, I'd choose the pricier one (if I was feeling rich) and/or I'd pick my favorite colour of the 2.It looks like the Korg will play back 32 tracks, and the Yamaha plays back 24. That has a lot to do with how many plug-ins you have running. And the truth is, Yamaha owns Korg, so I'd be very surprised if these 2 products are substantially different. Korg D3200Yamaha AW2400

Well, I think the BEST reason to buy a stand a lone unit is for the ease of use . . . Then you can just dump the tracks into your DAW with software of choice for mixing etc. That's what I do, but I don't use the onboard mic pre . . . To me that just feels like less hassle than recording into a computer. Call it old fashioned I suppose.

I've used the Korg D3200 (and its earlier versions) for all 4 albums I've released. This thing is so easy to use I can't imagine using anything else. I also have tons of hardware (keyboards/modules/etc) so I don't even use plug ins/virtual instrument software. I've never used a computer for recording music, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to someday. Check out some tracks at http://www.myspace.com/jeffgreenleaf

There are some pretty huge differences in the operating systems and menu navigation; according to most reports, the Korg is easier to use. There are lots of good reasons for a standalone, the first is portability, though that decreases as the unit's size increases. Secondly you won't need to deal with latency issues and the learning curve that comes with them. Thirdly, it's all about the knobs and faders, baby. Having a bunch of controls in front of you that are presented in an organized way can sometimes be a big help when trouble arises and you need to think about signal flow.What are you giving up? Loads of screen real estate, third-party software, plug-ins and some flexibility. I would lean toward models that allow one to plug in a monitor, 'cause I've been spoiled rotten by my flatscreen. Being able to see my waveforms at any number of zoom levels and visually align tracks is extremely helpful for micro-editing. Of course, you can still dump tracks to a software platform and have the best of both worlds. I'm probably going to invest in a small format portable at some point for offsite multitracking, myself.

Jan 24, 2009, 3:49am, mojobone wrote:There are some pretty huge differences in the operating systems and menu navigation; according to most reports, the Korg is easier to use. There are lots of good reasons for a standalone, the first is portability, though that decreases as the unit's size increases. Secondly you won't need to deal with latency issues and the learning curve that comes with them. Thirdly, it's all about the knobs and faders, baby. Having a bunch of controls in front of you that are presented in an organized way can sometimes be a big help when trouble arises and you need to think about signal flow.What are you giving up? Loads of screen real estate, third-party software, plug-ins and some flexibility. I would lean toward models that allow one to plug in a monitor, 'cause I've been spoiled rotten by my flatscreen. Being able to see my waveforms at any number of zoom levels and visually align tracks is extremely helpful for micro-editing. Of course, you can still dump tracks to a software platform and have the best of both worlds. I'm probably going to invest in a small format portable at some point for offsite multitracking, myself.Mojobone, I'm with you on all of the positives. I can stick my unit under my arm, grab my suitcase of stage mics and go out and record 16 tracks live of a local band, that's one of the reasons I purchased my unit . . . aside from the 16 faders!As far as the cons go, I don't see any IF you just use the standalone unit for tracking and then throw the tracks in a 'puter to add virtual instruments, mix/eq/etc. As a matter of fact I kind of look at it as the best of both worlds.These days you can get a good standalone unit for the price of a computer interface with knobs and faders. I purchased my second vf160 for $250. Now I can (with a bit of wrangling) go out and record 24 tracks live & come back home & throw them into my DAW. (It's a good way to earn some extra money too!)

Bill & Mojo, you guys have talked a lot about portability, which is obviously a huge bonus from your perspective. But does girlfriendx need portability? Or does she want to record with a standalone, and then mix on a computer? Which unit is better at mixing internally? I have heard some great recordings made with portables too, but maybe the original poster's question is only about recording quality differences or glitches. Hope she comes back to see what people have talked about.And I would definitely recommend listening to Jeff's tunes, just for the sheer enjoyment, besides the fact they were recorded with the Korg!

Steve, you said you didn't know why anybody would buy a standalone machine so I just thought I toss out a few good reasons to go the "combo" route. It's possible the person posting never considered that as an option. If someone wants to track on a standalone unit and post in a computer they only need a quality barebones standalone . . . which saves almost enough dough to buy a computer. It could make sense financially.Mixing in a computer has huge advantages over mixing in the standalone, no doubt about it. And of course if your using mostly virtual instruments you don't have much of a choice. Most of the people I know that are still hanging on to the standalones for tracking still record a lot of real instruments (drums, guitars cabs, bass cabinets, etc.) and a standalone has advantages there imo . . . especially recording multiple (more than say 10) tracks at once. I actually know a guy who still records to 2" tape & then dumps those tracks into a computer. A few months ago we were helping a buddy track stuff for his country band & we used 10 tracks just on the drums!As long as you have good mic-pres and converters I think the quality is probably all the same. (speaking about the digital options, not tape!)And here's a ditto on Jeff's stuff. I still love that high energy harmonica track!

Jan 24, 2009, 10:42am, billg wrote:Steve, you said you didn't know why anybody would buy a standalone machine so I just thought I toss out a few good reasons to go the "combo" route. I love finding out about the things I've overlooked. So Bill, your information is perfect! I really only have my limited perspective to offer, and your info helped me realize that I'd also like to have a rig to get out and record people with.I admit tho, I posted my initial thoughts with the kind of opinionated language that would encourage more people to offer their views. I had a feeling that thread was just gonna sit there unanswered. Glad you jumped on it bro.

Steve, if you (or anyone) was ever serious about a small iaffordable remote rig for tracking . . .The older Fostex vf160ex does 16 tracks at once (8 analog and 8 digital ) & you can find them used for a few hundred bucks. (the new ones only record 8 tracks at once). So that machine, a whole buttload of sm57s and one decent kick mic and you're all set for 16 track remotes. I must have paid for that thing 200 times over by doing little remotes!