Tascam dr40x Vs porta studio

Zonular

Hey guys,
I've never really got into recording much but I'm interested in putting together tracks with acoustic instruments, slide guitar, fingerpicking and a Shruti box.

Am I better with a field recorder with four tracks or something like a portastudio of old .

To complicate things I'd rather not be tied to a computer

longjaw

I'm looking for something very similar to record some solo blues/bluegrass, so will be following this thread with interest!

I'll need a track each for:

• vocals
• slide resonator guitar
• acoustic guitar
• mandolin

Zonular

I'm not sure if I picking up the four track ability of the tascam dr40x is not the same as four tracks on a multitrack.

PetGerbil

I've got a Dr-40. It's Ideal for "...I'll just record that."
 No messing about, just turn on, hit record to arm it. Hit record again to record.

To overdub another track. switch to "overdub" mode, hit rec twice and you're away. It records another *track alongside the first one. Perfectly in sync, no latency.no worries. 

In longjaw's case, I would record a stereo track of acoustic guitar, Then overdub the slide resonator guitar, Then overdub mandolin and the finally vocals. I would then dump the 4 stereo files into a computer to mix them together. They will all be exactly synchronized to the first track.

A portastudio type thing would allow you to do away with the computer completely, And be a bit more flexible regarding mixing but for my needs the Dr40 is plenty. 

longjaw

PetGerbil said:

I've got a Dr-40. It's Ideal for "...I'll just record that."
 No messing about, just turn on, hit record to arm it. Hit record again to record.

To overdub another track. switch to "overdub" mode, hit rec twice and you're away. It records another *track alongside the first one. Perfectly in sync, no latency.no worries. 

In longjaw's case, I would record a stereo track of acoustic guitar, Then overdub the slide resonator guitar, Then overdub mandolin and the finally vocals. I would then dump the 4 stereo files into a computer to mix them together. They will all be exactly synchronized to the first track.

A portastudio type thing would allow you to do away with the computer completely, And be a bit more flexible regarding mixing but for my needs the Dr40 is plenty. 

Cheers @PetGerbil - exactly what I had in mind! 

PetGerbil

I should mention that you can only overdub "like for like" files.(I think)

You can't overdub multiple mono files over a stereo file. If the original was mono, you will have mono overdubs and stereo,stereo.

newi123

Personally I preferred the Zoom stuff - the R8 is an excellent little unit if you don`t need too many inputs. Runs on batteries too. 

The one big advantage is that Zoom records to .wav on the SD card, so you can record there and then simply drag and drop files to your computer with the R8 as an external drive if you want to import them to a DAW later.

Tascam and Boss, don`t do that I think? You have to go through their own software converter to change their proprietary file type to a wav - which is just a pain! 

Edit - ignore me - the Dr-40x does allow you to do that - its not like the last generation tascam portastudios!

Zonular

Perfect , dr40x will be ordered so

andy_k

If you haven't ordered yet, I'd recommend the Zoom R16, the manual is available online to see what features it offers.
Advantages over R8, 8 inputs vs 2 on the R8.
Can be used as I/O to record 8 mics to DAW
Can be used as field recorder via mics, or built in stereo pair, uses batteries.
Can be used as hardware controller  in DAW for fader control and recording automation to 8 tracks via Mackie control.
About £200 if you are lucky.

longjaw

andy_k said:

If you haven't ordered yet, I'd recommend the Zoom R16, the manual is available online to see what features it offers.
Advantages over R8, 8 inputs vs 2 on the R8.
Can be used as I/O to record 8 mics to DAW
Can be used as field recorder via mics, or built in stereo pair, uses batteries.
Can be used as hardware controller  in DAW for fader control and recording automation to 8 tracks via Mackie control.
About £200 if you are lucky.

Can't find it for less than £325 - do you mean £200 second-hand?

andy_k

longjaw said:

andy_k said:

If you haven't ordered yet, I'd recommend the Zoom R16, the manual is available online to see what features it offers.
Advantages over R8, 8 inputs vs 2 on the R8.
Can be used as I/O to record 8 mics to DAW
Can be used as field recorder via mics, or built in stereo pair, uses batteries.
Can be used as hardware controller  in DAW for fader control and recording automation to 8 tracks via Mackie control.
About £200 if you are lucky.

Can't find it for less than £325 - do you mean £200 second-hand?

Seems to be quite a few available on ebay, obviously 2nd hand, I'm not sure they are making them new now, I think the newer versions are touch screen. R20 I think is the updated version, and the R24 doesn't really add much to the R16, for the price difference.
Main plus for me is having 8 mic inputs, at this price point.

PetGerbil

Do you need 8 inputs, or a hardware controller for your DAW or nearly 3 times the price though ?

andy_k

PetGerbil said:

Do you need 8 inputs, or a hardware controller for your DAW or nearly 3 times the price though ?

Just did a quick compare, a new Tascam DR40 is around £135, so yes, I agree it is quite a bit cheaper.
But at some point, the OP will realise that making multitrack recordings is much easier and more flexible inside a DAW, it is a journey many of us have taken.
I like the Zoom R16 as it very nicely bridges the gap between a multitrack portastudio type thing, and also acts as an I/O when used with a DAW, the fader control is something that can be useful, but the I/O is a feature that otherwise would require something like a Focusrite Skarlett, or many others, which mostly only have 2 inputs.
Obviously, this adds whatever cost to the project, but having 8 inputs is also something that is not that common on cheaper devices, and it is very useful to be able to capture multi mic recordings, or even DI duplicate tracks, which make that basic recording much more useful.
Just my opinion, the OP will have to make his own decision, and I am just trying to highlight some things that he may have missed, mixing on the Tascam will either be very basic levels, or very complicated without using a DAW, ( I have tried it on various different model Tascam machines )
YMMV. 

PetGerbil

andy_k said:

PetGerbil said:

Do you need 8 inputs, or a hardware controller for your DAW or nearly 3 times the price though ?

Just did a quick compare, a new Tascam DR40 is around £135, so yes, I agree it is quite a bit cheaper.
But at some point, the OP will realise that making multitrack recordings is much easier and more flexible inside a DAW, it is a journey many of us have taken.
I like the Zoom R16 as it very nicely bridges the gap between a multitrack portastudio type thing, and also acts as an I/O when used with a DAW, the fader control is something that can be useful, but the I/O is a feature that otherwise would require something like a Focusrite Skarlett, or many others, which mostly only have 2 inputs.
Obviously, this adds whatever cost to the project, but having 8 inputs is also something that is not that common on cheaper devices, and it is very useful to be able to capture multi mic recordings, or even DI duplicate tracks, which make that basic recording much more useful.
Just my opinion, the OP will have to make his own decision, and I am just trying to highlight some things that he may have missed, mixing on the Tascam will either be very basic levels, or very complicated without using a DAW, ( I have tried it on various different model Tascam machines )
YMMV. 

I agree and also I don't.
 I would argue that "making" multitrack recordings in a DAW is a giant colossal hugely expensive pain in the A@!*.
Better to use something else to record and specifically overdub, that has no latency ie. DR-40, 
I would also argue that mixing in a DAW is easy-peasy. And the best option.

If you're recording your own stuff, and have no need for 8 inputs. Dr-40. then transfer to DAW.
If you wanna "all in one"  and need more flexibility Portastudio type thing.

It is Sooooooo much easier to record, not on a computer. Latency, fan noise, Latency and latency. 

Musicwolf

PetGerbil said:

andy_k said:

PetGerbil said:

Do you need 8 inputs, or a hardware controller for your DAW or nearly 3 times the price though ?

Just did a quick compare, a new Tascam DR40 is around £135, so yes, I agree it is quite a bit cheaper.
But at some point, the OP will realise that making multitrack recordings is much easier and more flexible inside a DAW, it is a journey many of us have taken.
I like the Zoom R16 as it very nicely bridges the gap between a multitrack portastudio type thing, and also acts as an I/O when used with a DAW, the fader control is something that can be useful, but the I/O is a feature that otherwise would require something like a Focusrite Skarlett, or many others, which mostly only have 2 inputs.
Obviously, this adds whatever cost to the project, but having 8 inputs is also something that is not that common on cheaper devices, and it is very useful to be able to capture multi mic recordings, or even DI duplicate tracks, which make that basic recording much more useful.
Just my opinion, the OP will have to make his own decision, and I am just trying to highlight some things that he may have missed, mixing on the Tascam will either be very basic levels, or very complicated without using a DAW, ( I have tried it on various different model Tascam machines )
YMMV. 

I agree and also I don't.
 I would argue that "making" multitrack recordings in a DAW is a giant colossal hugely expensive pain in the A@!*.
Better to use something else to record and specifically overdub, that has no latency ie. DR-40, 
I would also argue that mixing in a DAW is easy-peasy. And the best option.

If you're recording your own stuff, and have no need for 8 inputs. Dr-40. then transfer to DAW.
If you wanna "all in one"  and need more flexibility Portastudio type thing.

It is Sooooooo much easier to record, not on a computer. Latency, fan noise, Latency and latency. 

Latency is only an issue if you monitor via the DAW.  My audio interface at home is a Steinberg UR824 which allows for Direct Monitoring (i.e. before the audio reaches the DAW).  I can also have reverb through my headphones whilst recording without 'printing' the effect.

Live I have used a Zoom L-12 Livetrak (recording to SD card) but you can also use it as an audio interface with direct monitoring.  These days I record live from the PA (Behringer XR-18) straight to laptop.  Again, direct monitoring.

Buffer size in my DAW is set to max, so no danger of drop outs or pops on even a low spec device.  The laptop I use to control the XR-18 and make live recordings is a really old homelap top with next to bugger all RAM which I had lying around.

andy_k

We all have our own prefs, I was just sharing my own experience, and IMO, recording is addictive, and can be a money pit.
These days, with Reaper, the barrier into PC recording is very low indeed, and it costs nothing to try it.
I have used my Zoom to record my band live, as a portastudio, with separate tracks for drums, bass, gtrs, vocals and then did my mix on the files imported into Reaper.
I have also used my Boss BR to do the same thing, with a stereo mix of the full band, guess which one sounds most professional.
As stated above, latency isn't a real issue for mixing existing recordings, and only raises it's ugly head when trying to do more advanced overdubbing and using plugins to record with.
If I wanted to record 8 tracks simultaneous into the DAW, I could do it with the Zoom, and therefore could record a band or combo as one performance, preferably to some form of click, which would then make later edits and overdubs easier.
I realise this may go beyond the original scope of the OP, but soon enough his first basic recordings will need to be improved on, better mic's, overdubs etc etc, so the costs will begin to add up.
Having something like the Zoom at an early stage can make some of these costs easier to justify, otherwise it will eventually start with a fairly basic I/O, and be restricted to 2 inputs and the NEED for low latency during recording.
Just some things that the OP might not have considered.

PetGerbil

I would go for the Zoom or something similar in a heartbeat if I didn't want to mix in the DAW.

I like the fact that in an external recorder I can record a guitar track, then overdub a second one straight away knowing it will be synced exactly.
 Whereas, With a PC it's always " Sort of in the right place. just move it about a bit, What did you set the buffer size to ? How have you set the Asio settings? Now, plugin compensation. On or off ? because you know it's not completely accurate don't you ? Just plug the output into the input to measure the proper latency. Oh wait, did you increase the buffer size last time cos you were using a VST ? well, plug the output into the input record a click and measure again...
Gaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
 

Zonular

To check back in, I'm sort of avoiding the pc option as I don't want to get into a money pit and I think having an ability to sketch ideas simply might be the best way in.

I'm an absolute beginner, no experience recording or mixing

andy_k

PetGerbil said:

I would go for the Zoom or something similar in a heartbeat if I didn't want to mix in the DAW.

I like the fact that in an external recorder I can record a guitar track, then overdub a second one straight away knowing it will be synced exactly.
 Whereas, With a PC it's always " Sort of in the right place. just move it about a bit, What did you set the buffer size to ? How have you set the Asio settings? Now, plugin compensation. On or off ? because you know it's not completely accurate don't you ? Just plug the output into the input to measure the proper latency. Oh wait, did you increase the buffer size last time cos you were using a VST ? well, plug the output into the input record a click and measure again...
Gaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
 

Genuine question, you are saying you record one take, then do a second take while monitoring the first take, and recording take 2?
then 3-then 4?
with no latency on the tascam?
Usually, in a DAW, you are recording to some form of click, or at the very least a count in.
The settings ideally should be optimised for recording, and for true latency free recording, you will be monitoring via the I/O ( direct monitoring)
This usually gets latency down to something insignificant, and recording is done, none of the fuss you mention.
Obviously, if you begin to add VST effects while recording, things will change, but recording is fairly simple.
Mixing the project requires more resources, and the buffer needs to be bigger, to allow extra processing resources, but in my experience, I mix more than I record, so these adjustments are done for the recording process, otherwise, it works as well as my PC or Mac allows.
A few recordings done on the Tascam, which require more work, will reveal the limitations of this approach, and inevitably the recordings will find their way into a DAW.
It is not that difficult to get a few steps ahead on this journey, by making a better choice at the beginning.
4 track cassette recording is coming back into fashion, and in some cases it works well, but at some point the transfer to digital will be necessary, just another illustration.

PetGerbil

andy_k said:

PetGerbil said:

I would go for the Zoom or something similar in a heartbeat if I didn't want to mix in the DAW.

I like the fact that in an external recorder I can record a guitar track, then overdub a second one straight away knowing it will be synced exactly.
 Whereas, With a PC it's always " Sort of in the right place. just move it about a bit, What did you set the buffer size to ? How have you set the Asio settings? Now, plugin compensation. On or off ? because you know it's not completely accurate don't you ? Just plug the output into the input to measure the proper latency. Oh wait, did you increase the buffer size last time cos you were using a VST ? well, plug the output into the input record a click and measure again...
Gaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
 

Genuine question, you are saying you record one take, then do a second take while monitoring the first take, and recording take 2?
then 3-then 4?
with no latency on the tascam?
Usually, in a DAW, you are recording to some form of click, or at the very least a count in.
The settings ideally should be optimised for recording, and for true latency free recording, you will be monitoring via the I/O ( direct monitoring)
This usually gets latency down to something insignificant, and recording is done, none of the fuss you mention.
Obviously, if you begin to add VST effects while recording, things will change, but recording is fairly simple.
Mixing the project requires more resources, and the buffer needs to be bigger, to allow extra processing resources, but in my experience, I mix more than I record, so these adjustments are done for the recording process, otherwise, it works as well as my PC or Mac allows.
A few recordings done on the Tascam, which require more work, will reveal the limitations of this approach, and inevitably the recordings will find their way into a DAW.
It is not that difficult to get a few steps ahead on this journey, by making a better choice at the beginning.
4 track cassette recording is coming back into fashion, and in some cases it works well, but at some point the transfer to digital will be necessary, just another illustration.

Yep, Basically what I want to do with a DAW is what I used to do on a tape 4-track. Record a guitar track and then record a 2nd track while playing along with the first.
But what DAW's want me to do is play along with a click (not a problem) then mute the first track and now play along with the click again to do track 2.
Or line up tracks by eye.

I've got latency free monitoring on my soundcard, that's not the problem going in. It's where the PC wants to put it when it's in.
If I record a second track and the first track is 6ms ahead of the beat. The second track is now 12ms. Third track will be 18ms.
Compound latency, if you will.  

On the Tascam, you record a track, switch to overdub mode. Hit record, track plays and you wail away on track 3+4 while listening to tracks 1+2. You're left with the original file (1+2) and another file which is 3+4.
If you mess up, you just press record again and it will record another 3+4 while keeping the first. (You will only be able to play the last 3+4 you recorded, but they are on the SD card still.

In my case, I then whack 'em into my DAW and do the editing there. Knowing that every one of the overdubs will be exactly where I played them. Any sloppiness in the mix is my fault.

andy_k

PetGerbil said:

andy_k said:

PetGerbil said:

I would go for the Zoom or something similar in a heartbeat if I didn't want to mix in the DAW.

I like the fact that in an external recorder I can record a guitar track, then overdub a second one straight away knowing it will be synced exactly.
 Whereas, With a PC it's always " Sort of in the right place. just move it about a bit, What did you set the buffer size to ? How have you set the Asio settings? Now, plugin compensation. On or off ? because you know it's not completely accurate don't you ? Just plug the output into the input to measure the proper latency. Oh wait, did you increase the buffer size last time cos you were using a VST ? well, plug the output into the input record a click and measure again...
Gaaaaaaaaahhhhh!!!!!
 

Genuine question, you are saying you record one take, then do a second take while monitoring the first take, and recording take 2?
then 3-then 4?
with no latency on the tascam?
Usually, in a DAW, you are recording to some form of click, or at the very least a count in.
The settings ideally should be optimised for recording, and for true latency free recording, you will be monitoring via the I/O ( direct monitoring)
This usually gets latency down to something insignificant, and recording is done, none of the fuss you mention.
Obviously, if you begin to add VST effects while recording, things will change, but recording is fairly simple.
Mixing the project requires more resources, and the buffer needs to be bigger, to allow extra processing resources, but in my experience, I mix more than I record, so these adjustments are done for the recording process, otherwise, it works as well as my PC or Mac allows.
A few recordings done on the Tascam, which require more work, will reveal the limitations of this approach, and inevitably the recordings will find their way into a DAW.
It is not that difficult to get a few steps ahead on this journey, by making a better choice at the beginning.
4 track cassette recording is coming back into fashion, and in some cases it works well, but at some point the transfer to digital will be necessary, just another illustration.

Yep, Basically what I want to do with a DAW is what I used to do on a tape 4-track. Record a guitar track and then record a 2nd track while playing along with the first.
But what DAW's want me to do is play along with a click (not a problem) then mute the first track and now play along with the click again to do track 2.
Or line up tracks by eye.

I've got latency free monitoring on my soundcard, that's not the problem going in. It's where the PC wants to put it when it's in.
If I record a second track and the first track is 6ms ahead of the beat. The second track is now 12ms. Third track will be 18ms.
Compound latency, if you will.  

On the Tascam, you record a track, switch to overdub mode. Hit record, track plays and you wail away on track 3+4 while listening to tracks 1+2. You're left with the original file (1+2) and another file which is 3+4.
If you mess up, you just press record again and it will record another 3+4 while keeping the first. (You will only be able to play the last 3+4 you recorded, but they are on the SD card still.

In my case, I then whack 'em into my DAW and do the editing there. Knowing that every one of the overdubs will be exactly where I played them. Any sloppiness in the mix is my fault.

I think I understand your problem, you are in fact compounding latency, as you describe
I'm not sure why that is happening, or why you have to mute track one to do your first overdub?
Maybe it is a limitation with your PC?, maybe you have buffers set wrongly?
If I record an overdub, while listening to my first track, I can get the latency down to an acceptable level, but I may be doing something different.
There is no increase to this minimal latency when I record my 4th, or 8th track to my original track-it is not compounding?
I have tried setting round trip latency up in Reaper, by following a video by Kenny, which explains how to get around anything being mis reported by the I/O, and this gets the settings down to the absolute minimum, this is not as good as direct monitoring but is perfectly acceptable  ( to my ears anyway )
It doesn't really take much effort to get this all working, and the advantages of recording into your DAW will soon outweigh the limits you are placing on yourself by recording outboard, transferring and then mixing in the box, at some point you will want to record an overdub and you will be back at square one.
Modern PC's and Macs are very capable of this kind of thing, but I do understand it is nice to have something that fits in your pocket to record on, I used my Boss Micro BR for exactly this, and soon realised I could get better results by using a DAW.
Perhaps you should rethink how you are doing it, there may be something basic you have missed?
Most people can record and mix inside a DAW these days with minimal latency problems, but sometimes expectations are unrealistic, eg, trying to play along to VST instruments playing midi, and using VST plugins to achieve the amplified guitar sound and effects while recording. In fact, this is actually very possible with the latest hardware, but we don't all have the latest hardware.