Hello SOS Forum. I am new to this forum; however I am a digital subscriber. I believe SOS has the greatest articles and tips compared to other magazines with similar topics.

I am contemplating the purchase of a hardware recorder, such as the Alesis or a used Mackie HDR, to pair-up with my Mackie 1640i for recording and mixing. I currently use software recorder, Reaper and the 1640i.
I know it is a matter of personal choice, but I'm looking for feedback/input/comments from the community on this subject. Recording to hardware, I think, will enable me to utilize the software recorder to record, save and compare my mixes before burning them to CD.

Has anyone in the community started with computer recording software before migrating to hardware recording devices such as the Alesis and/or the Mackie?

Thanks in advance for our comments. input and feedback.
regmor ..

Hi Reg and welcome!

I'm not quite sure what it is precisely that you're hoping to achieve by utilisng a hardware recorder. I note that you say:

Quote regmor:

---

Recording to hardware, I think, will enable me to utilize the software recorder to record, save and compare my mixes before burning them to CD.

---

but I don't understand (probably me) what advantage/difference using the hardware recorder will give you.

I'm not clear why you can't do multiple mixes in 'software' and then compare those via your DAW/other software.

Any more info on what advantages you perceive in using a hardware recorder?

Regards. Mike

I went in the opposite direction. I started with a Fostex D108 (a lovely multi-tracker, BTW) paired with a Soundcraft Spirit FX 20 and an assortment of hardware preamps, reverbs and compressors, using the computer only as a stereo recorder for mixdown. And I felt very comfortable with that. I eventually moved to Logic when I installed it to support my partner's university course and found many of the conveniences of the DAW environment too useful.

However I've never regretted going the hardware route first because all DAWs, to a greater or lesser extent, imitate hardware. Also hardware is nicer to work with than mouse and keyboard, and it was only when I got a Mackie Control that I really began to feel comfortable with the DAW.

Anyway, that's my tuppenyworth.

CC

--------------------
Put the fun back into dysfunctional.
Mr Punch's Studio

Thanks Mike for the reply.
I can perform multiple mixes in my DAW, however, I will lose two channels in the process.I mix out of the box with the 1640i. I am leaning toward a hardware recorder; have not fell over yet. The implied advantage will be mixing to the DAW, saving the mixes to several track pairs for every song I mix. This way I can select the best mix and record to CD.

.. but, I may be half-baked

Thanks for your feedback. I'm an old school kind of guy. I have some hardware gear and looking to purchase two more items. I like the recording software; Reaper. But I mix out of the box and would like to save my mixes to the computer without losing two channels in the mix process. I'm leaning toward a hardware recorder; still looking and reading.
I've noticed the buy now prices for Mackie and Alesis have come down on ebay, but would rather purchase new or from a pro audio store.
Thanks again ..

Quote ConcertinaChap:

---

I went in the opposite direction. I started with a Fostex D108 (a lovely multi-tracker, BTW) paired with a Soundcraft Spirit FX 20 and an assortment of hardware preamps, reverbs and compressors, using the computer only as a stereo recorder for mixdown. And I felt very comfortable with that. I eventually moved to Logic when I installed it to support my partner's university course and found many of the conveniences of the DAW environment too useful.

However I've never regretted going the hardware route first because all DAWs, to a greater or lesser extent, imitate hardware. Also hardware is nicer to work with than mouse and keyboard, and it was only when I got a Mackie Control that I really began to feel comfortable with the DAW.

Anyway, that's my tuppenyworth.

CC

---

I did much the same, was a committed hard-disk recorderist, mixing down via Mackie 24-8-2 to a Mackie HDR24. But with the HDR24 being based on an ancient Intel 386 motherboard could see the day coming when it went pop. I sold the lot and got a digital mixer than acted as a control surface too (DM24) so for all intents and purpose, it is the front end to a recorder called Cubase

I made it even more user friendly by setting up templates in Cubase, so for example bass was always on one MIDI channel, Synths on another, and with that a fixed number of audio tracks with Mic1 => Channel 1, Mic2 => Channel 2, etc. I then mix it all down to an Alesis ml9600, though I have noticed that in Cubase with the Release ASIO driver in background set, I can take the stereo SPDIF from the mixer and feed it into the SPDIF Stereo input on my soundcard and record into Wavelab

Hi Reg

I use both, depending on what I'm recording dictates whether I use the hardware recorder though.

I have a Mackie HDR24 which I use for tracking drums and guitars. For some reason I can't quite work out, drums sound much more natural than if I track straight into Nuendo. It could be down to the converters - one day I'll replace my Motu 24 i/o with a Lynx interface and that might have a bearing on my use of the HDR. Once drums and guitars are down I FTP them over to Nuendo for tracking lead guitar solos and vocals and anything else that requires multiple takes as comping tracks on the HDR is not as easy as with a DAW like Nuendo/cubase/Reaper.

If I'm just tracking vocals or synths then I go straight to Nuendo, but there is something satisfying in having the dedicated recorder on hand.

I've also used a Mackie 1640 going straight into Logic but again the drums never sound as good as they do with the HDR24.

If you have space and the cash then I definitely recommend both options.

Thanks for the tip. I have not fallen totally over to a HDR but I'm getting closer to the edge.
I am experimenting with dedicating one channel for Reaper FX and sending several channels to the effects channel. I've noticed the effect channel is affected by the volume settings of the tracks in Reaper, and not the channel volume of the 1640. In essences, I will need to balance the channels in Reaper to gain the advantages of the effects channel.
I can't apply a lot of effects to the overall mix channel, just a few for the overall mix.
Again, I'm still experimenting; learning as I go.
The HDR is looking better and better ...

Hi Regmor,

Possibly a few unmentioned details require clarity...
a) The mackie is recording via ?channels to the PC - 4/6/8/16/32?
b) The recording mode is 16/24/32 bit
c) Sample rate is 44/88/96/192?

My thinking is that, assuming you want to do a 'quality' comparison which invariably boils down to the converters on both PC & hardware initially. Thereafter its a question of what happens inside the 'summing math'.

After all these recorders are still 'digital' not analogue.

The more subjective comparison will be though the amount of work it takes to achieve a mixdown via software or the hardware.

I'm a digital guy - no excuse there - my Yamaha AW4416 served its purpose, but it became clear to me that software simply made life easier and the subjective quality (measured and tested) was not enough to sway me back to hardware.

My 2c...

--------------------
C.LYDE
http://soundcloud.com/c-lyde

Hello CLYDE

The mackie 1640i is recording via firewire 16channels to the Windows7 PC
The current recording mode is 16 bit
The current Sample rate is 44

Having software recorder is not bad. don't get me wrong. i'm not saying that. i have some out board gear i would like to utilize on some tracks. the software plug-ins interacts or response to the DAW faders more so than with mackie faders. Currently, I don't mix in the box. I'm more of a tactile person. however, everything change; there are no constants.
perhaps in future days we will see another variant of the hardware recorder

Quote C.LYDE:

---

The more subjective comparison will be though the amount of work it takes to achieve a mixdown via software or the hardware.

I'm a digital guy - no excuse there - my Yamaha AW4416 served its purpose, but it became clear to me that software simply made life easier and the subjective quality (measured and tested) was not enough to sway me back to hardware.

My 2c...

---

I'm much the same way. Initially I lamented the loss of my trusty HDR24, but not having a hard disk recorder made me learn how to use my DAW more effectively and learn more about it, streamline the workflow and am getting better results now. Even when I had the HDR24 I would ftp the files across to the PC for editing and then back again for mixdown DOH!

Hello Mike,
Thanks for presenting your questions and excuse my tardy response.
Currently, I'm using the DAW with my 1640i mixer to record and mix. I'm saving my mixes to cd using a Tascam CD-RW900SL. So, I burn through a number of cds just listening to my various mixes to select a suitable version. I don't have the mix saved on another location on my computer or within the DAW. I guess I could feed (import) the mix into the DAW from the cd.
A perceived advantages would be to send two track mixes to the DAW and not burn the mix to cd. I also can save my mixes on tracks in the DAW, same as saving recording tracks.
If I'm out to lunch or half-baked its "Ok" to say so.
Or Maybe, I need to spend more time with my DAW to learn how to save my mixes to two tracks.
Whats that ... did I hear someone say, "Learn your DAW"?
Either way, I respect your comments and suggestions.
Have not gone full tilt on the HDR, just yet.
I can find other "useful" items to purchase.
Wife's birthday is approaching ...

regmor

Quote regmor:

---

Hello Mike,
Thanks for presenting your questions and excuse my tardy response.
Currently, I'm using the DAW with my 1640i mixer to record and mix. I'm saving my mixes to cd using a Tascam CD-RW900SL. So, I burn through a number of cds just listening to my various mixes to select a suitable version. I don't have the mix saved on another location on my computer or within the DAW. I guess I could feed (import) the mix into the DAW from the cd.
A perceived advantages would be to send two track mixes to the DAW and not burn the mix to cd. I also can save my mixes on tracks in the DAW, same as saving recording tracks.
If I'm out to lunch or half-baked its "Ok" to say so.
Or Maybe, I need to spend more time with my DAW to learn how to save my mixes to two tracks.
Whats that ... did I hear someone say, "Learn your DAW"?
Either way, I respect your comments and suggestions.
Have not gone full tilt on the HDR, just yet.
I can find other "useful" items to purchase.
Wife's birthday is approaching ...

regmor

---

I don't see any advantage, I suspect that a mix burned to your tascam amy or may not sound better than a mix bounced from the DAW.

The main idea behind a Software DAW is that it's modular, and you can add hardware that will allow you to record at higher sample rates, and get superior results if recording in a treated space.

Why you would loose two channels during the mix process, that's a limitation of YOUR hardware.
If you want to mix in that manner, you will need different hardware.



--------------------
G-Dub
Studio G-fx 15inch quad-core i7 Macbook Pro Logic913

Quote G-Doubleyou:

---

I don't see any advantage, I suspect that a mix burned to your tascam amy or may not sound better than a mix bounced from the DAW.

The main idea behind a Software DAW is that it's modular, and you can add hardware that will allow you to record at higher sample rates, and get superior results if recording in a treated space.

Why you would loose two channels during the mix process, that's a limitation of YOUR hardware.
If you want to mix in that manner, you will need different hardware.

---

Thanks for your reply.
I see (as I expected)my current setup, mixing to the tascam, is possibly the better option or best alternative.
I tried to routing the output of the tascam into the mixer input for ch15 and ch16 and fed that back to the DAW (Reaper) to create (record) a two track or stereo mix, while using the remaining channels ( 1 thru 12)to balance a 12 track mix (recording). This configuration enabled me to utilize FX within Reaper to fatten and tighten the mix; the ReaEQ, SStillwell/exciter and ReaComp. This is what prompted the idea of acquiring a HDR.

For me, when it come to DIY home studio recording and mixing, its always good to check with the Forum before leaping into the wallet.
Thank you again for your reply and comment.

regmor

Hi again!

Of course, we all have our own ways of working in all sorts of areas - not just audio production - and it's not for me or anyone else to say "You ought to be working like this". We all get into semi-instinctive ways of working with the techniques we know and other people's approaches just don't 'fit' with how we work.

That all said, I think there IS another approach to achieving your aims without having to burn a CD of every mix. I use both a DAW and an audio editor, which is strictly stereo/mono. In your sitaution I'd save the mix to the editor rather than to CD. I can open multiple files in the editor which for you would allow an instant comporaison of mixes at a specific point in the song.

Although called an 'editor', the software does much more than just editing and I also use it for the mix mastering process.

The editor I use is Goldwave, although there are many other products around. Sony Sound Forge Audio Studio is very good and well thought of. But I've now got so used to Goldwave that I stick with the familiar. Which I guess brings us full-circle to where I started this post...!

Bravo Mike,
Quite. I did not think about using an audio editor. I will experiment with such and review the results. This route along with rearranging my hardware effects setup (routing) can perhaps enable me to achieve my initial goal; saving my mixes before burning to cd. I have an older version of Sound Forge, although the new versions are not that expensive.
Thanks again for the suggestion.

With my current setup, I'm mixerless, and if the session calls for it I will rent additional interfaces,and mikes.

You seem to be hung up on the Mackie, not sure about Windows, but my Mac allows me use multiple interfaces from different companies.

Some companies Like MOTU and Apogee, have drivers for their hardware that support multiple interfaces.



--------------------
G-Dub
Studio G-fx 15inch quad-core i7 Macbook Pro Logic913