Alesis HD24

[technobreath]

Does someone have experience with this? I'm seriously thinking about buying one for a bigger project I'm working on now, but I have yet to find out how it works and what possibilities there are with it.

[Bigduggieface]

I've recorded 3 projects with this machine as a standalone recorder.

The HD24 is a transition between the older Alesis ADAT digital tape machines and the newer ubiquitous hard disk formats.

They work good, but it's almost considered a dinosaur by today's technological standards. The HD24 does have an ethernet port output option, but it is next to worthless. While you may be able to transfer files from the HD24 to a computer, it takes forever, and the file organization is a nightmare. Expect to use the HD24 as a standalone recorder only.

Before you choose to buy one, be sure to compare cost vs performance between the HD24 and a software based computer rig. But I digress. This is almost another topic altogether.

If you've got a 24+ channel mixer, and you're looking for a 24-track recorder for cheap, I can say that it sounds and works reliably.

[paul999]

I own the adat hd 24 and use it all the time. It is bullet proof. I have recorded live shows where it records for hours at a time. Never had it glitch, ever. I use it for drums all the time. I edit in my daw. If you buy an alesis fireport, which I use, you can export via firewire from the hard drive. It takes less then 3min/song to down load all 24 tracks. It is cost effective for 24 channels of high quality A/D conversion.

[Bigduggieface]

Originally Posted by paul999

If you buy an alesis fireport, which I use, you can export via firewire from the hard drive. It takes less then 3min/song to down load all 24 tracks.

Ah, yes. The FirePort! This little invention did not exist during my experiences with the HD24.

There are also ADAT digital lightpipe outs on the HD24 which you can connect to many soundcards for transfer to your DAW, if so desired.

Of course, if you're not using computer-based software at all, the HD24 works great when tracking and mixing using a mixer and outboard gear. But who the hell mixes with an analog board any more? (just kidding)

[paul999]

Nice one biduggieface! hahahaha. I had a lot of trouble with clock tear when I tried optical with several interfaces. So much so that I only use it for monitoring.

[mindundermatter]

I think the thing is great... for a 24-track tape machine. At least, that's all I've ever used one for.

[technobreath]

OK. I understand now a little bit more than before. Really enough to say I don't want this system, because what I really need is a DAW system. So any sugestions to what equipment I should go for then. I would lie if I said money is no issue, but I'm willing to spend some money to get a good system. I don't need the fanciest AD converters, the fanciest preamps etc. What I need is a computer interface wich has 24 TRS inputs. The mixer is Allen&Heath 40 channel with direct out on most of the channel, so I need to record live conserts, conferances, speeches etc - but the most important thing is to get a good recording of a full band...

I've looked at motu equipment for this purpose too, is motu good enough?

[garageband]

And the Fireport appendage is blessedly inexpensive.

[garageband]

Really enough to say I don't want this system, because what I really need is a DAW system.

OK. This is the point in the forum where things go wrong. Very nice, very experienced people have advised you that this is the way forward: Why the Alesis piece is better in a live context than a computer-based solution. How it interfaces with a computer-based DAW for editing. New guy proceeds to ignore the spirit of what is being said and veers off with next half-baked idea.

While the MOTU is good hardware, you are asking a fairly gigantic task of your computer and hard drives (yes, drives) to record 24ish tracks at one, esp at any resolution higher than 44.1/16. Also, on the bus/throughput question, PCI-based systems require computers with PCI slots. Please hold your applause and cheering 'til the end. Not much fun with a laptop without an expansion chassis, which isn't any fun either. You could daisy-chain 3 FW devices, FF800, 828, whatever, but this is still a huge demand on a system, not to mention expense.

If it were me, there's no way on this planet I'd pick a computer DAW over a stand-alone for this application. None. No contest. For simplicity of setup and reliability, I can't imagine going with plan B. I don't know about you, but I don't dig showing up an extra hour early just to set up a recorder. If you are playing the job, it's much easier to get someone to press Record than run your computer. If the majority of what I did was recording live, it would be conceivable that my primary rig would be something like the Alesis, Mackie or Tascam 24 track units, but more likely a smaller unit, having never ever not hardly even seen the need or advantage in recording 24 tracks of live music. Geez, who are you recording, the Polyphonic Spree? Since there's some stage bleed, you'll only be able to edit so much - if you try to shift a part to improve the ensemble, you'll just end up it a ghosty mess. You are pretty much limited to mixing, which is probably pretty close to right coming out of the Mains on the board. So, all you really need is a tiny box that does stereo. Mostly kidding about the last part. Seriously though, just having a lot of tracks is not going to make anything better, per se and will make several things worse.
Stand-alone's are great devices. You can always bring those tracks for mixdown at home later. I mean really - do want to rip apart your entire studio every time you go do a job? That is how shit gets broken.

[Bigduggieface]

Garageband, as usual, makes some good points. For live recording, the standalone HD24 is convenient and it will record accurate signals.

It would be difficult to find hardware that will allow you to record 24 inputs on a laptop. You would be therefore forced to haul in a full tower computer with PCI slots that will allow you to connect a MOTU unit. Not the end of the world, but a bit of a hassle when you consider that you'll also need a keyboard, mouse and monitor as well.

It is clear that you would be using the Allen & Heath mixer as your preamps and you need a recording device. What is not clear is how you will be mixing these tracks once they are on 'tape'.

If you use the HD24, you will need that mixer in order to mix down to a 2-track stereo file. You will also need a device to record that 2-track file to (ie laptop, CD recorder, DAT, etc).

On the other hand, if you use a DAW, once the tracks are recorded, you could take these files and mix 'in the box' without the hardware mixer. You could burn a CD, or send files via the internet using a computer-based system.

A device such as the MOTU 24i/o will give you 24 TRS ins/outs and can connect to your computer with a PCI card and a firewire cable. A modest computer will allow you to record at 16 bit/44.1 kHz comfortably. You would need an increasingly powerful computer to do any exhaustive mixing with effects, compression, and eq of course. However, I think it would be a rare occasion where you would need all 24 inputs at once.

There seems to be pros/cons on either side of this issue. If it were me, I like the convenience of recording to the HD24, then transferring the files to a DAW for editing & mixing. You could probably purchase the HD24 for less than a new MOTU unit. Of course this would mean you would need to purchase BOTH the HD24 AND a DAW with decent cpu power.