Standalone 24-track recorders

[Saudade]

Hi all,

Just wondering why all these recorders in the market ended up being discontinued (Mackie S/M/HDR, Tascam MX2424 etc).....what was wrong with them?

I think for live location recording it still beats having to lug a powerful enough laptop and an interface with that many inputs there...but that's just me

Anyway, my company is thinking of buying one used or new to do lower budget concert/gig recordings. We only need 24 tracks. Which model is a worthy investment, most reliable with the most useful feature set? The same recorder will also be used in a studio environment to record indie-level releases, so if it can do the "virtual tracks" thing it would be very useful. Sound is secondary concern here Will that be the only surviving one (available new) in the market the Alesis HD24?

thanks for any help

[jinksdingo]

AKAI DPS24. There is a MkII version but it is really a reissue in a different color. The DPS24MkII will be perfect for you. Check one out

[Saudade]

yes indeed the DPS24 looks like the best fit. But it's quite hard to find on ebay (at least it seems now) and the interface cards are non standard. Also it only allows 16 tracks simultaneous...might be a limitation when push comes to shove...the onboard preamps save me the cost for outboard units but I am also paying for faders I don't really need....

Will keep this unit in mind...thanks for the suggestion. BTW I once owned a DPS12 and I loved it because I just had to power up and I'm ready to record in seconds. Some of my best recordings were made on that machine...fond memories

[wshaw]

I have the fostex d1624 and have had very good results with it. The on-baord conversion is surprisingly good, and it's stable as a rock.

The d2424 or d2424lv ought to suit your purposes. They're not made anymore, I'm pretty sure, but they come up on Ebay from time to time, and at very low prices for some reason.

In fact, they are two d1624s on Ebay right now. If you bought them both, you'd have 32 tracks, cheap!

[Remoteness]

IMO, hands down the Alesis HD24XR is the best standalone 24-track hard disk recorder.

It's a solid recorder and it sounds very good to boot.

[idylldon]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

IMO, hands down the Alesis HD24XR is the best standalone 24-track hard disk recorder.

It's a solid recorder and it sounds very good to boot.

Best bang for the buck out there, IMHO.

Cheers,
--
Don

[AndrewsLaneRec.]

HD24 hands down.

[squeegybug]

+++ on DPS24. I've used this as the center of my whole studio for the last 4 years, outstanding machine. You get 12 very good preamps with equally good ADC, plus just about a full studio of processing, routing, and 56-bit mixing functionality. The editing is fantastic. And the sound as well... the main point of course, although you are not concerned about that

You *can* record 24 tracks simultaneously, just need to add more outboard pres. If you get them with ADAT outputs the DPS has 8 ADAT inputs already built in, 16 more optional. Lots more information, including used machines for sale occasionally here: DPS World User Forum.

Steve

[Corran]

You know, I hate that I have to choose between two models. I want the best sound quality but it's hard to justify the expense sometimes, especially as the HD24/HD24XR is only different on the inside.

But hey I can't afford either model right now anyway, but I'm working towards it.

Speaking of which, why do these Alesis units sell for about $600 on ebay?? The resale value is practically nothing! 40% resale value usually means somethings not right...either that or people just don't need 'em anymore, or the economy and all that

[ray dsr]

iZ RADAR 24

the best.

[dlmorley]

Yes. Radar is the best.
For the money, the Fostex D2424LV is a bargain. I used one for a while without issue.
People seem to like the Alesis too. I have no experience of it, but the Fostex with it's built in Remote is a great unit.

[Saudade]

I think the resale value is closer to $1000-$1200, rather than $600.

The Fostexs look like really good deal what with the built in ADAT connectivity, but also worrying that I have never heard of these models, if we buy it we are basically screwed if it breaks down.

Radar is definitely way out of our budget...ahem...

[Corran]

Originally Posted by Saudade

I think the resale value is closer to $1000-$1200, rather than $600.

I was a little low...ebay auctions seem to be around $800-$900 max. I saw one a few weeks ago have a bad description go for $600 something.

[Saudade]

hmm...an impt consideration for the choice: Will I be able to use the recorder like a standalone 24 channel ADC/DAC?

See, in future if we add an 24 ch ADAT audio interface like RME's stuff and a computer, will I be able to use the HD24 or D2424LV like AD/DAs i.e. using the input monitoring functions to convert and pass the signal to record into the PC?

For example, let's say I want to record 16 tracks (recorder's 16 analog inputs set to monitor thru 16 corresponding ADAT outputs fed to RME interface) while sending back 8 channels of cue mixes from the PC (RME's 1 ADAT output fed to recorder's 1 ADAT input set to monitor thru corresponding 8 analog outs). At the same time can the 16 tracks to be recorded be monitored thru 16 analog outs of the recorder (i.e. analog inputs mirrored to both analog AND ADAT digital out simultaneously)? This would be great for feeding into an analog mixer for zero latency cue mixes.

Can either or both of these recorders do that? I read through both their menus but it doesn't go into much detail. The HD24 seems to be able to do an "All Inputs" thing but I think it can only select all 24 inputs by digital OR analog but not a combination.

appreciate some user experience here....

[edwinhurwitz]

The HD24 can do analog or digital in groups of two channels. The manual lags far behind the capabilities of the unit. If you check out the yahoo group dedicated to the HD24, you will learn everything you want to know. Marc Brevoort has written some excellent software to interface the hard drives with a computer. This is necessary because of:

One thing you might want to know about it is that it writes in a proprietary format to a hard drive. This is a slight drag, but the cool thing is that it writes 8, 16 or 24 tracks at a time in one big file so that it doesn't spend a lot of time dealing with disk allocation for each separate track. This makes it very efficient and very stable. There are some quirks with the machine, but once you get used to it, you will find that it's an excellent performer and the XR version does sound excellent. It's hard to find 24 channels of conversion that sound as good for anywhere near this money and many people have bought it for the converters alone.

Again, the Yahoo group is an excellent resource. Very knowledgeable and friendly people there.
HTH
Edwin

[letsdance]

i have researched this to and my conclusion is ...if i had the money...hd24xr

i joined the yahoo help group just to see what was being said,,,and they are a very helpful and honest group of people

i think the main problem with all these recorders is the extra suff needed.

mic/cable splitters of some kind....fireport caddie (to dump onto PC/Mac)...harddrives (seagate seem to be best)...if you need to monitor then you need a desk of some discription...also there is know gain control (or inbuilt limiter) on the pre ins, so if your recording a snare or the like..you might get into the red...(although you could cut and past :)

but that aside...hdXR all the way

and of course a kettle and sum coffee

[Gerax]

It looks like the market headed over to laptop based DAWs and small/portable interfaces, so HD recorders were abandoned. I agree with you on the fact that they still are very convenient and stable recorders for remote gigs.
I have been recording live gigs for years with my trusty Mackie SDR2496. I know Mackie is kind of thrashed around a bit here on this forum, but in 7 years or so of use on the road to many gigs across the country it's never given up on me once. I only had a couple glitches (a small dropout) when I recorded 24 tracks at 24/48 on a less then stellar drive (an older model and maybe not defragmented or freshly formatted), so it wasn't the recorder's fault. I had it running for 2 hours straight without stopping and at the end it only took it like 15 seconds to close the file...
To me it's the most convenient HDR out there: 24 I/O analog AND digital (ADAT), both sets of outputs work at the same time, and you can choose which I/O type works in pairs (just like the Alesis), plus it's got ADAT sync, Word Clock, MTC/SMPTE sync...and the USB port for file transfer (which is kind of slow and I never used it since I installed a removable drive bay for a second drive that I pull out and plug into my PT workstation). It works with drive sizes up to 1 Tb...on cheap ATA drives, sound quality is more that decent and to me it's easier to use than the Alesis: you don't have to mount/unmount drives, and once you play "stop" after a record take the file is automatically saved. You just turn it on, create a session (or just use the last one used which opens up by default), arm some tracks and press Play/Rec.
Really to me has been a worthy purchase, rock solid. I stll use it along my PT/Laptop based DAW as a parallel backup unit, and everything works great.
You can find several used on ebay (out of production from several years), for a reasonable price.

Hope this helps

L.G.

[LX3]

Absolutely, buying the recorder is the easy bit.

A decent 24-channel transformer splitter will cost at least twice as much as the recorder. Then multicores, desk of some kind for monitoring, preamps, cases, room mics, etc.

Etc, etc, etc, etc. Believe me, it never ends.

If you're just recording for your own amusement then you can do things however you like, but if you're hoping to record commercially, you have to commit to the long haul.

I agree with most people here that in this price range the HD24XR is the one to get. It has very credible A to D and, as you've noticed, it holds its resale value much better than the standard HD24 does.

(Although I'll also be the first to admit that the Alesis machines are not perfect)

I have no direct experience of the Fostex machines. But I have it on good authority that the Fostex doesn't stand up too well to life on the road. I don't know what that band were doing to their D2424, but they dumped it for an HD24 and were much happier.

[Saudade]

Thanks all you guys for so much info, tips, experience, advice and insight. I conclude that out of all the subforums of Gearslutz, this remote one has the nicest peoples hanging around In the 1-2 times I have posted here I have gotten nothing but humble solid straight forward help and advice from people who are real working professionals. It's a far cry from the other subforums where people hardly get much replies other than sarcasm and egoistic behaviour Hope I don't get flamed for saying this

Yeah, I did research about 24 channel splitters because I figured if we use it live we can't rely on the livesound contractors (referring to small gigs here) to have a full featured live sound mixer with 24 direct outs. So most of the time we will get the signal into a splitter first.

But...I have this ridculous idea due to our budget....I was thinking since we don't really need to monitor, maybe I can get away with feeding the 24 signals into our preamps 1st than straight into the HD24, then turn on all channels input monitoring and feed its outputs to the livesound guys.

Of course the main thing that could go wrong is: if the recorder suffers a glitch the whole sound will be ruined and the audience will start throwing tomatoes at us

haha anyone actually does it this way in the real world?

[LX3]

There may be the odd exception, but on the whole... no. Sorry.

Mainly for the reason you mention - do something weird on your rig and the live sound guys have no signal. And if you need to trim your input gain, their mix goes up the swanee.

Also, it means you would be feeding them line level, and if you're patching into the stagebox, most of those lines will be directly hooked up to their mic inputs.

=

Basically, if you present this idea to most live sound people, you'll get raised eyebrows and probably a complete lack of cooperation. Venue techs are not fans of anything that is likely to jeopardise getting their side of the job done.

If you're stuck for budget you may just have to go down the direct outs route. But the feasibility of this will, as you say, depend on the venue. It could work out if you restrict your operation to a few venues who you've struck up a good relation with.

[edwinhurwitz]

I've supplied outs from my rig for front of house a few times, but mostly with an engineer I knew well with whom I worked on a weekly acoustic show. He enjoyed being able to use the signal from my very nice preamps and bypassing the ones in his elderly Mackie board.

As far as a big rock and roll show, I doubt you'd ever get away with it.

Some venues do have an extra split already wired in (The Fox Theater here in Boulder does), but I found that Audiopile Pro Audio* Welcome to Audiopile have a very reasonably priced 24 channel split. I've been using it for a couple years and it's held up very well. Not isolated, but I've never had a problem.

Edwin

[Richard King]

Not isolated

Not a good idea at all.

[edwinhurwitz]

Originally Posted by Richard King

Not a good idea at all.

Perhaps it's not ideal, but I've never had a problem even once. If you do a search through this group, you'll find that my experience is not unique.

I do have some splitters with transformers, but given the extra cost and weight and the fact that they've never really been needed, I don't really carry them around any more.

Edwin

[Remoteness]

Isolated Splitter: Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

With that said, it should not be a problem when you're interfacing from the same source you're grabbing your power from.

Never the less, if I'm splitting directly from the mics on stage I always use a splitter even if the power source is the same.

[gareth.h.rees]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

Isolated Splitter: Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

With that said, it should not be a problem when you're interfacing from the same source you're grabbing your power from.

Never the less, if I'm splitting directly from the mics on stage I always use a splitter even if the power source is the same.

Sorry to jump in on this thread but I'm quite enjoying following it as I'm in a similar situation.

Whats an "isolated" splitter and why would you need one over an "un-isolated" splitter?

Cheers!
Gareth

[edwinhurwitz]

Originally Posted by Remoteness

Isolated Splitter: Better to have one and not need it than to need one and not have it.

With that said, it should not be a problem when you're interfacing from the same source you're grabbing your power from.

Never the less, if I'm splitting directly from the mics on stage I always use a splitter even if the power source is the same.

This is why I also bring a very long extension cord! :-)

An un-isolated split is one that is basically a y cord.

An isolated split has either a transformer or buffer electronics between the source and at least one of the inputs, if not all. This means that the two inputs don't interact with each other. The good side is that it protects you from that kind of interference, especially ground problems. The bad part is that it can degrade the signal, depending on the quality of the split. Buffers can add noise and transformers can add all kinds of degradation, like phase shift and distortion if the transformer is inadequate to the task. So a good quality isolated split can be exponentially more expensive. A good transformer is anywhere from $60 to $150 a channel depending on the number of outputs and other factors.

If there are no factors degrading the signal, an un-isolated split can actually sound better.

HTH. There are a few threads in this forum that go into detail about splits.
Edwin

[zeppe]

+1 on the AKAI DPS24. I have 2 of them and they're great reliable machines with a simple learnig curve/great pre's and all the digital editing facilities you need. I use the ADAT card to get 20 inputs, 12+8(M-Audio Octane). Building up a nice collection of mics and external pre's and esoteric FX units and I've never found this machine wanting.
I cant understand why they've stopped production of this and other similar products. I have friends with PCs, pro tools and they're permanently having hassle with them instead of making music

Cormac

MySpace.com - The Jute Factory Studios - Waterford, IE - Rock / Metal / Other - www.myspace.com/thejutefactory

[Remoteness]

Originally Posted by gareth.h.rees

Sorry to jump in on this thread but I'm quite enjoying following it as I'm in a similar situation.

Whats an "isolated" splitter and why would you need one over an "un-isolated" splitter?

Cheers!
Gareth

Click on the SPLITTER tag you may find at the bottom of a thread about splitters or at the bottom of this forum's main page.

[gareth.h.rees]

Thanks edwinhurwitz =)

I'll do a bit more research in to it when I have time, just a bit busy with exams and whatnot at the moment so thought I'd ask in this thread since it seemed relevent!

Thanks anyway guys - back to topic!
Gareth

[massimo]

I am a very happy Fostex D2424 owner. I never use a computer for recording in my studio.
Mind, there is quite a difference with converter chips betweeen the D2424 and D2424LV. 90% of times I use an external converter, but the internal conversion on the D2424 is solid - the chips used to be top-of-the-line AKM's at the time. The LV (LV being for "live") was a cheaper version made with inferior converters.

best regards
Massimo