digtal multitrack recorder vs recording software

i used to record tracks on pro tools, and one day i bought a aw4416
because i had an hardware trouble with protools
i couldn't compare the difference with the same track sound beetwen protools and aw4416, but it seems that aw4416 sounds a little better.
what do you think about it?

no comparison. hardware, hardware, hardware.
even with protools and no latency and good sound quality u cant come close to the ease of use of multitrackers. NO FREEZES, NO ERRORS, NO CRASHES NO MORE RESTARTING. and on second thought i doubt protools can give u the same sound quality as a good recorder. the yamaha is good but not the best u know its still 10000000000 times better than the pc.
u have to sacrifice the user friendly options on pcs and the visuals like animation and stuff for a 100% reproduction of what u made and recorded.

Hardware is the factor! Check this out: Protools uses 32 bit internal processing which is compromised by the abilities of the host computer. My Akai DPS 12i uses 56 bit processing throughout. I'm sure that the Yamaha is at least as efficient as the DPS. In otherwords, dedicated hardware multi-trackers will sound better due to higher resolution processing. It is also a known fact that the components in most PCs are budget whereas the components used in the dedicated boxes are of much higher quality. Consider that a new UA 1176 costs as much as your average new PC. What does that tell you? Also consider that a Radar system or Protools HD start at over $3000.00. This is the price you pay for quality if you want to house your studio in a computer.

Don't kid yourself. You will not get the edge that dedicated hardware provides in software running on a consumer grade computer. What you get with software (and what is adequate for the needs of many out there) is fascinating animations and quick "sounds just like" processing presets. Any professional will tell you that a preset has very little use in the real world because music production is not only an art but a science as well. And as with all arts and sciences no two problems are the same. New and creative solutions are what this activity we call "music production" is all about.

Of course not everyone can afford to drop 3 or 4k on a piece of gear. Not everyone needs to. Likewise, not everyone has to compete with studios that have been producing legendary releases since the first half of the last century.

JPW

wow i forgrt all bout this thread!!!! you brought it back from the depths^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cool

Hardware:
1) Cheaper
2) Hold it's value
3) After 6-8 years they still work
4) Designed for the task at hand
5) Single point of contact for support
6) no porn/virii

Software:
1) Specialized software attempting to operate on a general purpose platform.
2) Expensive. Even a decent 8 in/out card for a computer as about as much as 8-in hardware multitracker. Then there is the cost of the computer AND the software.
3) Steep learning curve. Since it is so easy to add `features` to software, this adds complexity to interface. Most of this `gadgetry` is not needed when 98% of the work is just mixing down with effects (something hardware has been doing for 30 years).
4) Does an 8 year old computer even boot anymore? Is it worth it if it did?
5) What happens when something goes wrong. The computer industry suffers immensely from the dilution of repsonsibility issue. Since you have a couple dozen manufacturers in that computer, no one wants to admit that their component (software or hardware) is a problem. It is always the other person's fault.
6) Replacement cost? Maintenance cost? Virus risk?

" virii "

Is that the plural of virus? lol...




Yeah, 3000 has some damned good points. I think I might switch to hardware for recording...

Just gotta make up my mind between the 1680 or the DPS12. Hmmmm...?

Roland has been notorious for "short shelf life products". After the golden days of the JD800 they've just released one forgettable flavor of the week product after another. The user interface of the DPS is far more intuitive and (this is a very big point) THE DPS DOES NOT USE DATA COMPRESSION! All of the Roland multi-trackers "feature" a proprietary data compression that seriously compromises the sound of the machines. The converters are not up to the standard of the DPS. This is evidenced by a/b'ing tracks recorded on the DPS with uncompressed tracks recorded on a Roland recorder.

Hope this helps.

JPW

good points 3000

I'ma have to say protools is on point, I got the MBox and loved it. Recording's not like making beats where your actually bangin sh!t out on the MPC, I would rather have hardware for making music but for actually recording music software is the way to go fa real fa real

Whatever hardware machine you get make sure it can export wav files. That way if you want to move your tracks into a software program like protools its easier.

Pro-Tools is tight - Software -

Hardware takes up a lot of space in this overpopulated world

I agree that when it comes to multitracking, hardware is probably the best option for most people. But comparing a software program like Logic or Protools to a Hardware multitracker just doesnt make sense. Yes in terms of tracking in a demo studio, a hardware multitracker is a better option. But software does so much more than just record sound. It is much more expensive for a reason. It has a much steeper learning curve for a reason. And as its been pointed out to run a good software setup you need a top of the line computer and interface. Well when you spend all that cash I would hope you end up with much more than just a multitracker.

Its a "use both" kind of thing, I think. Hardware for quick tracking and mixing, computer for "final touches," mastering and "serious" editing.

As for taking up space, well, one way or another you are going to need to use a physical mixer, unless you are doing everything in the computer already.

For example, my DPS can be automated over midi, so its like having a digital mixer. I have two analog synths and some other outboard gear that I use lots, so being able to record all that stuff at once while muting midi tracks on my mpc live is how I like to work.

For that kind of work flow, if Ididnt use a hardware recorder I would need a) a fast computer b) a good midi/audio interface and c) a nice front end to control the faders,sends,track mutes, etc. (like mackie control).

Im not anti computer. If I go to a studio with a good state of the art pro-tools set-up Im going to use it, but I wouldnt trade my hardware recorder for software, at least, not currently.

No porn on the hardware? Damn I got to go all software then...

one day....there shall be porn in the roland vs series.