Alesis HD24

[richiebee]

You don't adjust the gain in the HD24, it takes whatever your mixer feeds it, so watch the meters and adjust the gain on the mixer.

I like the simplicity of the HD24 - we use one sometimes for live shows because its like a tape recorder - we can plug in a snake from our mixer's individual outputs, pretty much hit record and we don't have to worry about it all night while doing live sound for the audience.
The problem with it is getting the material off the HD24 - the ethernet way is unbelievably slow - slower than real time. We usually take an optical out and record in real time to our DAW. It's also slow, but quicker than ethernet. The quick way is to buy the Fireport, but that's another $200. I decided it wasn't worth investing for the amount we use it.

[technobreath]

OK... I got lost in all my thoughts here... So you don't adjust the gain anywhere other than the mixer... I kind of knew that when you say it So I gather that this is the same way on the motu 24 i/o?

Funny, the Norwegian ads that promote the HD24 says it has even got a ethernet port for extreme fast file transfer to daw. somehow I don't believe this after reading all those posts. And yeah, the fireport was kind of expensive too...

So the way I look at it now, is that HD24 is simple, and that is it. If I go for the motu 24 i/o with the PCI card, I will end up about the same price as a HD24 with a fireport, and now today a guy actually came up to me and donated a complete and brand new daw computer to fit in our new rack ... so... I gotta spend some money buying a cubase license for this computer of course, but that I gotta do no matter what hardware I choose. I will also get a decent discount on the hardware I eventually choose from the sound consultant working for us right now.

The only negative side is that it is in theory a little bit more complicated using a DAW for the recording process, but that can be dealt with by making template files to load for the people who don't know everything you need to set up a proper project file

And something we haven't discussed yet also makes me lean towards daw only system. In the daw enviorment I can easily record one track at the time, if this is needed during production. I can also do use the daw's metronome to record to, pretty good when tracking drums for example. I can also easily add vsti plugins to the project, and the audio will be in sync with both vsti, the tempo designated, and then also be in sync with every effect that needs to be in sync - like delays or other similar stuff... All this is of course done in the DAW no matter if I choose the alesis or the motu, but it is a lot easier to work with the DAW when recording. I don't say it's simpler, but it's easier to have everything on screen and a keyboard and mouse.

So anyone have opinions about my reasoning? Cause I think I'm going for a motu 24 i/o if someone doesn't convince me to go the other direction ... Don't think about problems like learning to use the stuff, that we will take care of, but what I worry about is an easy way to make recording and replacing tracks afterwards. I can't imagine editing stuff like replacing tracks, maybe just tiny parts of a track being that simple with the Alesis recorder. And when you know how to use the DAW this is a simple and easy operation in a DAW, and you got it all graphically expressed on the screen, not just numbers...

what do u guys say? the motu?

[technobreath]

hey, just because I'm new to the forum does not mean I'm new to the business. And I am listening... I also realize that asking someone who has worked an entire career with tape machines if a DAW only system is an alternative, I'm not gonna get a good answer. So my point - there are a lot of personal opinions here in the posts, and those personal preferance reasons are not good enough to convice me do anything.

I need objective information on what the different hardware can do and how the hardware work together with the DAW. I'm not just gonna do anything without proper investigating my possibilities, and what I concluded with in my last post is not a result of not listening, its a result of listening to everyone and compared to my experiences.

I see really no point in buyuing the Alesis when most of the recordings will be edited and mixed down and masterd in a DAW enviorment anyway, and the alesis box isn't making it a lot simpler to record.

[brightshine]

Sounds like you are trying to figure out how to get a signal into your computer?? An interface (Motu) is what you need. I guess the HD24 would work as a convoluted interface to finally get the signal (files) into your DAW. Since you are versed in the use of your DAW, buy a Motu and away you go.

[garageband]

your advice not being accepted as the final word?

That's not what's going on and you know better. As many as half a dozen people (including myself) have patiently presented well-reasoned arguments why a certain course of action is useful and recommended, but those answers just wasn't good enough so perhaps he should do just the opposite. Hell, he could take a 24io and shove it up his ass sideways for all I care. It strikes me as extremely rude to solicit advice and crap on it, while he waits for the magic words to make his decision for him. So yeah, I am little hacked off when someone wastes the time and expertise of the nice people (whom I happen to like and appreciate) trying to help him.

I could be nicer, maybe.

[technobreath]

Thank you for that. I am sure you are good at what you do, I am not interested in getting into ANY word fights with any of you. I am open for any tips and advice, but my ass aint 19 inches wide, so that's one advice I feel would be too painful to follow .

Anyway, I'm not sure this discussion is on the right track no more, so I think the best thing to do is to just conclude it like mindundermatter here says. If any would like to continue discussing this, please feel free to PM like some of you have already done.

TB

[brandondrury]

I had to clean this one up a bit. Let's keep it clean, fellars.

Garageband has confidence in his views and rightly so. While he could probably add more "pretty please with sugar on top" (to quote The Wolf from Pulp Fiction) the substance in his post was undeniable. With that said, credibility on the web is not immediate so you may be stabbing around looking for other points of view. I'd say that's a wise way of shopping.

I can totally relate to wanting a computer system that can handle all of your needs. That seems like a very noteworthy idea. That's what I would want. There is one major problem we all seem to be dancing around.

---- Is a computer the ideal way to record 24 tracks (or whatever) for 60-90 minutes? -----

While I am a huge proponent of computer recording, I have to say that if I had to do live gigs on a regular basis I'd probably be less than excited about a computer system. I'm sure there are guys who have pulled off the computer recording thing in that context, but I'd be very hesitant myself. It only takes one hiccup for individual tracks to go out of sync. It only takes one lockup 75% through the "set" to lose the entire recording for that day. If a person could hit "stop" and "record" in between songs, I'd say the computer method is an excellent way to go.

So, if 100% bulletproof reliability is what is needed for extended periods of time it's my opinion that we ditch the computer system right off the bat. If 100% reliability is not absolutely required and cash is more of an issue, it doesn't make sense to shell out all the dough for the Alesis. This issue has not been defined.

I recorded 10 different praise and worship services at my mom's church years ago (I think I was recording 16 tracks) on a AMD XP1800 computer with 512MB of RAM on XP. I was using Vegas back in those days and I had glitches on 2 services that took me hours and hours and hours to get right. (I'm very anal about sliding vocals around....it never feels right.) I was using virtually no CPU power then and I have my doubts about whether a modern computer rig would be much different, but maybe.

I can clearly see that there is less to worry about and less to have the eyes on during record with a HD24, but is it really that simple

Yes and no. Getting the signal is is mega simple. Getting the signal out is where the questions arise. I see an Alesis solution was mentioned previously.

The thing I would like to know is - is it worth buying a HD24 over a motu 24i/o to get the easiest possible way to record 24 tracks.

There is no denying that a computer will have a steeper learning curve. With that said it sounds like you've conquered most of it already. Of course, when you know exactly what you are doing, problems CAN show up and that brings in a new learning curve of sorts. I don't think "easiest" would necessarily be one of my criteria if you are running it. If it were me the main factors would be stability and price. Once it's setup it, it should be simply an issue of arming all the tracks (one click if you use the folders in Cubase) and hitting record.

So you don't adjust the gain anywhere other than the mixer... I kind of knew that when you say it So I gather that this is the same way on the motu 24 i/o?

Correct.

So anyone have opinions about my reasoning? Cause I think I'm going for a motu 24 i/o if someone doesn't convince me to go the other direction

If less than 100% reliability is acceptable and all that stuff in Revelations doesn't occur if you lose an entire session, I'd say that going with the Motu isn't a bad idea at all. If someone can hit the hit the record button twice and Control+S in between each song your reliability goes WAY up.

Brandon

[garageband]

Don't mind us boys... we wuz juss wrasslin'.

[technobreath]

Hey, GB, I am sorry if I have said anything to offend you, and I am sure you know what you do very well, and that you have expert knowledge in this subject... I was just a bit surprised by the way you said things.

I can, as I said to the mods earlier, understand how it is to have an answer and solution - a good one - and me not listening, and asking for more. I've been in the same situation myself in both other forums and real life. So please don't take it as a personal insult at all, coz that was never the idea at all.

I think part of the problem is that I could never know who you are, and that you are good... I see your rep.power and number of posts, but that doesn't always mean anything.

Another part is that I didn't see that you was trying to give me good advice, partly because the way you said it, and partly because I didn't see it because I didn't see what you actually wrote, because I just saw how rude it was to just run over partially me and the rest of the people discussing here. I kind of understand that wasn't your idea...

So instead of saying that I disagree with you and just go on, I will read over once more what you wrote, and give it some thought again, without seeing what I saw as rude language .

I hoped we could start over again, because I haven't really seen who you are and you haven't seen who I am either, so lets not start off by disliking eachother at least before we know eachother hehe.

So what you say?

OK, next case. No question about it, a computer rig will become unstable after hours of recording and less than that too. And when you say it, a glitch in the record isn't a good thing, and it is something I haven't thought of yet. We're spending too much money on this entire project to settle with a system that glitches. Now there won't be too many occasions that all lines being used, and not for hours, but there are several occasions I can think of, not often, but I still like a system that can handle it without glitches.

And as you say, one crash is the death of the whole record... good point.

So I clearly see the advantage with the alesis box. The only thing really worrying me is if the alesis can be used in any way like a DAW interface? This may be because of me being so into the DAW way of working, and my lack of experience with tape recorders.

To get any soundfiles in anyway from the HD24 I will have to do it after recording via either fireport or ethernet port? I can't feed live into my DAW as I could with a DAW interface?

If that is the case I am totally stuck in the middle, because each device has qualities I want, but both have also negative sides I do not want.

So the question then is naturally - is there any device with both? A harddisk recorder that is also a DAW interface like the motu 24 i/o.

One solution would maybe be to buy the HD24 to handle the live recording and have a DAW interface like 24 i/o connected to the outputs of the alesis, or simply just split the outs from the mixer into both devices, but the word overkill comes to mind pretty fast here too so...?

TB

[brandondrury]

So I clearly see the advantage with the alesis box. The only thing really worrying me is if the alesis can be used in any way like a DAW interface? This may be because of me being so into the DAW way of working, and my lack of experience with tape recorders.

If you are at least in your mid-20s surely you had cassette tapes back in the late 80s / early 90s. Surely you recorded something on it. Assuming gain structure and routing are setup properly and all tracks are armed I'd guess you hit record. When the show is over you hit stop. The end. It should be that simple because the HD24 doesn't do anything other than that.

As was discussed earlier, gaining access to those files is an altogether different issue, but there are solutions out there.

As far as reliability is concerned, it sounds like you need 100% reliability and it sounds like you aren't willing to tap the record button in between songs (in Cubase this process takes about as long as a double click and would solve all your problems). In that case, I'd definitely be leary of recording 90 minutes or whatever straight. Anything longer than 20 minutes makes me nervous.

With that said, I'm positive there are guys who have computer systems from 3 years ago who record The Rolling Stones or whatever onto a computer rig. It's possible that utilizing fairly modern system with super fast drives and such may suit your purpose perfectly. Computers are a miracle for music recording but extreme reliability in this case is not generally considered their strong point.

To get any soundfiles in anyway from the HD24 I will have to do it after recording via either fireport or ethernet port? I can't feed live into my DAW as I could with a DAW interface?

Sure you could, but your computer rig would obviously need as many inputs as you recorded on the HD24.

is there any device with both? A harddisk recorder that is also a DAW interface like the motu 24 i/o.

I'm not aware of any and I can't imagine there being any. It doesn't make much sense to build a computer audio interface that doesn't need the computer.

Yet another route that hasn't been discussed is the new Presonus Studiolive. It's a live sound mixer / audio interface all in one and it looks excellent. It comes with this software that is designed for one click recording so a live sound guy can push one button and doesn't have to mess with it. I talked to the head marketing dude at Presonus for quite a while a few months ago and it sounded like it was EXTREMELY well thought out specifically for this application.

It was only one phone call, but I wanted to say that dropping a marker would split up the wav files and go ahead and save them to the hard drive. A 12 year old kid would have no problem pressing X once in between each song. That would totally solve your problem.

Just a thought.

Brandon