Alesis HD24 vs. Tascam MX-2424

[ArnieInTheSky]

Anyone who has experience with both, I'd be much appreciated with your input. I'm a bit skeptical about the converters on the Alesis but it must be a pretty good unit. The Tascam sounds as though it's the next best thing to the RADAR but a new Alesis I can get for a used Tascam.

Okay slutz, debate.

jl

[BruceTheProduce]

I really haven't used the Alesis, though the Tascam sounds very good in my opinion. I'd say get the Tascam.

[dale116dot7]

I find the Alesis unit to be solid, and media costs (IDE drives) are very low in price. The downside is that it really behaves literally like a multitrack except that you can cut-and-paste easier but there are no multiple takes then keep the good one unless you put it on another track like the Tascam allows. Graphical editing has to be done on a PC off-line - you need to transfer files to it. Another downside is that the BRC isn't quite as good with the HD24 as it should be - the Tascam remote is better IMHO.

That being said, I really like my HD24. Jim Williams has some upgrade package to improve the converter board but even without the mod, it sounds pretty solid to me. It must have been a totally different group of designers that gave us the Masterlink and the HD24... I've also worked on an Alesis board and the 3630 compressors and those are both, well, not so good IMHO. I mix on analog so this unit hooked up to my board exactly how a 24 track 2" would have.

-Dale

[Gregg Sartiano]

Those kinds of machines always struck me as the worst-of-both-worlds: the coldness of digital with the clunkiness of analog. Is there a particular motivating factor for going MDM instead of DAW?

Also, I don't even have to tell you that your resale value on these will probably literally be 1/10 of what you paid.

[uncle duncan]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

Is there a particular motivating factor for going MDM instead of DAW?
I don't even have to tell you that your resale value on these will probably literally be 1/10 of what you paid.

My HD24 has never crashed. Can't say that about my DAW. Resale value of the HD24 would probably be better than trying to resell a DAW package. That said, I use the HD24 to track bands, with a real mixer (4 seperate headphone mixes - try doing that with a comparably priced DAW package) and then transfer via lightpipe into the DAW to overdub and mix. Can't imagine working strictly on the HD24, since it would be exactly like working on an analog 24 track, and everybody knows you can't make records that way.
Gregg - if you see a HD24 for sale for 1/10 it's street price (that would be about $150) let me know.

[Johns]

Originally Posted by uncle duncan

My HD24 has never crashed. Can't say that about my DAW. Resale value of the HD24 would probably be better than trying to resell a DAW package. That said, I use the HD24 to track bands, with a real mixer (4 seperate headphone mixes - try doing that with a comparably priced DAW package) and then transfer via lightpipe into the DAW to overdub and mix. Can't imagine working strictly on the HD24, since it would be exactly like working on an analog 24 track, and everybody knows you can't make records that way.
Gregg - if you see a HD24 for sale for 1/10 it's street price (that would be about $150) let me know.

I agree. The HD24 has a couple of great uses, tracking bands the old fashioned way, and live recording (especially concerts). It does both well, rearly crashing and burning. I am sure the Mackie works well also, although I have no personal experience with it. The HD24 files can be quickly sent via firewire to your DAW of choice for further mangling.

[Ziggy!!]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

Those kinds of machines always struck me as the worst-of-both-worlds: the coldness of digital with the clunkiness of analog. Is there a particular motivating factor for going MDM instead of DAW?

Also, I don't even have to tell you that your resale value on these will probably literally be 1/10 of what you paid.

The resale on a DAW isn't any better. Plus they completely appeal to different applications. A DAW is an all in one unit, Once you add I/O you don't really need anything else to operate... thats major overkill for someone who only needs a 24 track recorder.

[Gerax]

I've used both.

They're both really good units, the only drawback to me is that the Tascam "had" some software bugs issues (but I got to use it when it was on its first steps) and forces you to use SCSI drives, whereas the Alesis uses cheap IDE drives; the thing I don't like about the Alesis is it uses a proprietary file sistem for the drives, that doesn't allow direct transfers on DAWs if you don't use the ethernet port or the fireport option...not a major thing but a bit of an hassle; also, it doesn't use the drive to its full space capability, but it treats it like a tape, no matter how many tracks you record the maximum time allowed per drive is always the same; to me this isn't a convenient way of handling drives...even if they claim it's less prone to drive fragmentation...on the plus side the Alesis has I/O built in, while the Tascam forces you to choose what kind of card slots to install (Analog, TDif, ADAT, AES...).
I chose a different route for my location rig with the MACKIE SDR2496, which is rock solid, has analog and digital I/O built in, has timecode and sync options built in and allows me to swap a drive of up to 1Tb size with my DAW quick and easy for editing and mixing.
I'm looking for a second one (as a backup) so if you have one laying around for 1/10 of its original price drop me a line

L.G.

[synthoid]

>> no matter how many tracks you record the maximum time allowed per drive is always the same

No, that is incorrect. If you change the track count on a song, the "remaining time" indicator for the drive will change accordingly. It is exactly three times as long for 8 tracks as for 24 tracks. The only restriction is that if you set a song to be 24 tracks but end up using only 12, you will waste half of the disk space in the song, and it is not possible to change the number of tracks in a song after it is created.

-synthoid

[Gilliland]

The converters on the XR version of the HD24 are actually quite good. In fact, people have been known to buy the XR unit just for its converters and to use them independently of the recorder section. It's often compared to the Radar system.

I've been using mine for five years now, and I consider it one of the best purchases I've ever made. Rock solid performance and excellent sound.

I have no experience with the Tascam.

[dale116dot7]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

Those kinds of machines always struck me as the worst-of-both-worlds: the coldness of digital with the clunkiness of analog. Is there a particular motivating factor for going MDM instead of DAW?

Reliability. My HD24 has never crashed. I was playing at a studio this summer and in the middle of three takes (yes, three times!) the DAW crashed mid-take.

[dasoundjunkie]

Originally Posted by dale116dot7

Reliability. My HD24 has never crashed. I was playing at a studio this summer and in the middle of three takes (yes, three times!) the DAW crashed mid-take.

I've had mine for quite a while(4 yrs) and it's never crashed, never given me a headache of any kind, quite honestly I sometimes look at it and can't believe it says Alesis on the front! I like the converters and when I sync the machine with my Rosendhal Nanosyncs it sounds phenomenal! Yeah it is just like a tape machine with a little editing thrown in but for the money and convenience I don't know of anything better. I much rather track to it than to any daw!( same problem you had)and then dump into the computer for editing and mixdown.
My 2 cents

[ArnieInTheSky]

Thanks for the input. I was running a Roland 2480. Good unit but I want an upgrade. The first project I worked on was stored digitally but mixed through a console. Much nicer end result. I like the practicality of the DAW's but it's like buying any all in one unit. You get variety and choice but it always seems to lack a bit in quality. Mind you, the I wouldn't say the Roland sounds bad, I just want something better.

I haven't picked out a console just yet but the RAM storage does have it's glitches. I like the linier recording devices. More reliable. Just from my experience anyway. I would go tape but I don't want any hassles with up keep and it's inconvenience. Digital stoarge ain't so bad as long as the converters are nice.

thanks again,

jl

[Gregg Sartiano]

Whew! Flame-suit ON!!!

O.K. -- the 1/10 street price thing...I'm just visualizing stacks of unsellable ADAT's -- the moment the 002 (maybe even the 001) came out, that thing was history. Actually, the moment PT hit 24-bit, "how could you not go there" (not my words, Glen Ballard's). At least an old CPU can be sold to a college student. If we are at a maturation pont for the MDM (24 tracks, random access), then maybe the "shelf life" of one of these will be indefinite -- like the RADAR systems. Strike one for me. I hope I'm proven wrong. Still, I know a lot of folks who wouldn't be happy with a $1500 budget just for converters, let alone HD's, etc., but if they can pack it all in at that price point, cool.

As for the budgetary thing - if you're micing a full band, running 4 headphone mixes, etc., etc., then you have a significant investment going over and above the $1500 for an MDM. I'd pop the extra $$$ and run 3 888/24's with a fast G4 and mix plus -- I have used plenty of stable PT systems, and I think the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. For one thing, you can track 24 and then go back and track ten more. Or just use it as a "tape machine" like RADAR, keep one monitor in the corner, and do the rest of your work on a controller with FF, REW, a scroll wheel, and some LED's.

If the street price of an HD 24 (the cheaper option) is $1500, then a G4, mix plus, and 3 888/24's is $4k, give or take $500. One "I just wanna fire up my PT files so you can mix the album" client represents that entire difference. Get the extra $1k and buy a Big Ben, then the 888's are competing with anything short of the Rosetta 800 price point. Heck, I remember being at Enterprise and seeing a machine room for a certain J-series console that hit after hit had been mixed on -- 64 channels of 888/24's (around the time HD came out -- the room was later switched to 192's).

Running a monolithic system puts your studio in the "niche" category -- for better or for worse -- heck, if you make the most of it, the inflexibility may be a GOOD thing (if I never do another f'n drum edit or vocal tuning I wouldn't miss it one bit), but I have a hard time believing that you're not losing clients. Do you have a DAW anywhere? Trust me, I'd love open an all-analog (or non-DAW based) studio and use the "this is the place where we DON'T edit tracks" M.O. as a selling point, but I think, as a business decision, it would lead me to a life of poverty, esp. since I would have to tell clients that we were going to forego some significant options which would help place them in the best light -- without the ability to say "we're keeping it analog." If your clientele doesn't demand this, then more power to you.

I mean, I work with live bands sometimes, too, and a lot of them like to bring in their MBox demos to work with. Some wanna take the PT files home and overdub keys, etc. or cut up the arrangement (all you non-digital types: people cut tape, too...). If you get a 002 and a decent CPU (to do ethernet transfers/PT setups from the HD24), you're halfway to buying a DAW.

***
As for the "analog 24 track"/"everybody knows you can't make records that way," I stand by my comments. If we could have a world without DAW's, I'd be first in line. I have a music degree, and I'm a lifelong player -- production and engineering was a means to an end that ended up growing into a career (no small thanks to a voracious appetite for reading about audio and a few key gigs that functioned as apprenticeships).

Everybody knows that 99% of the kids who play clubs these days can't make a radio-ready record "that way," and, even if they COULD, would it really be a selling point anymore when they're shopping for a deal? "O.K., we're gonna build this house -- with NO POWER TOOLS!"

It's music, it's business, but the one thing it's not is a pissing contest. The "I cut the track on analog in one take" attitude is beat -- I wanna hear the MUSIC, not how you got there. I know world-class players who will sit there and nudge parts WITH you because they want the groove to be at its absolute best. Heck, even Donald Fagen was known for adjusting digital delays in milliseconds (on drum machine parts) to perfect the swing -- and that's pre-DAW. Top artists making big analog records with legendary producers used to have to patch in a Harmonizer to fix a "wrong" note in an otherwise great vocal take. Click-click-"process"-done. If I'm gonna sacrifice that kind of versatility and power, there had better be a damn good reason.

P.S.: Unlike you, I >HAVE< seen an HD-24 crash. If it goes down, you're projects are toast until you can locate another one.

[ArnieInTheSky]

Originally Posted by Gregg Sartiano

Whew! Flame-suit ON!!!

P.S.: Unlike you, I >HAVE< seen an HD-24 crash. If it goes down, you're projects are toast until you can locate another one.

You 're the first person I've heard of knowing an HD going down. I know nothing is invincible but what were the circumstances? As a test, I had one recording multiple tracks for an extensive period of time, then I unplugged it. After plugging it in I was astounded that all the information was still there up until the termination.

Also, I am quite lucky in my recording position. It is my way or the hi-way. I believe in pre-production. A new word for a lot of young artist. I'll teach it to them if their willing to learn about it. I'm not giving in to the time stretches, bass drum cutting and vocal pitch shifting. I'll leave that to button pushers and keyboard players. That's not a job for acusonic captors and artists.

jl

[synthoid]

Geez, such heated opinions about a piece of gear. What's the use of that?

I have a DAW and a very nice interface to it, and a bunch of computers. I still choose to use my HD24XR under some circumstances. I like to think that I choose intelligently, to fit the circumstance.

The HD24(XR) can be a terrific tracking device. Stick a patch bay in front of it and you have a very flexible and simple tracking environment whereby you can switch an input from track to track and lay down many takes. Send 24 inputs to it and you can track for 30+ hours (!) without a glitch.

No one ever wasted a minute futzing around with latency compensation and offsets to make an overdub line up on an HD24.

Sometimes it's more convenient to track straight into a DAW. If you're doing vocal comping, and you have a good take manager like in DP or PT, it's probably going to be much more straightforward to track directly into the computer.

The HD24 is my favorite way to track a hardware sequencer that is driving hardware synthesizers / samplers. Have the HD24 send MTC into the sequencer, and you have a rock-solid timing basis with no futzing. If you have 96 tracks to capture, you can use three songs, so long as they all start at the same time offset (i.e., 0).

A very very useful piece of gear. Makes a great addition to a DAW.

-synthoid

[Gilliland]

Originally Posted by ArnieInTheSky

I had one recording multiple tracks for an extensive period of time, then I unplugged it. After plugging it in I was astounded that all the information was still there up until the termination.

If that's true, you are very much the exception. The HD24, like pretty much ALL disk recorders, is quite dependent on the user pressing "STOP" at the end of the recording. If you pull the plug while the recording is still underway, it WILL lose at least part of the recording. That's why I use and strongly recommend to others a UPS with every hard disk recorder. (For that matter, the same is true of any DAW.)

In the HD24 world, a whole set of tools and techniques has cropped up to deal with the situation where a track is lost to a power failure. But a UPS is a very simple and cost effective method to solve that problem before it ever happens.

[ArnieInTheSky]

Originally Posted by Gilliland

If that's true, you are very much the exception. The HD24, like pretty much ALL disk recorders, is quite dependent on the user pressing "STOP" at the end of the recording. If you pull the plug while the recording is still underway, it WILL lose at least part of the recording. That's why I use and strongly recommend to others a UPS with every hard disk recorder. (For that matter, the same is true of any DAW.)

In the HD24 world, a whole set of tools and techniques has cropped up to deal with the situation where a track is lost to a power failure. But a UPS is a very simple and cost effective method to solve that problem before it ever happens.

The unplugging of the device was intentional. It was to test the device. I should point out it was the Fostex and not the Alesis.

jl

[valleysound]

I bought an HD24 a few months ago as a backup to my DAW system. It has worked out very well for me, but as more than just a backup. I record live gigs thru my Metric Halo 2882's and HD24 at the same time with a Yamaha 01V96(if I'm mixing the live sound too) and the combination has provided excellent flexibility.
Example: I'm touring with a group right now using the 01V96, Metric Halos, HD24, Hearback monitor system, and 24 channels Presonus Digimax 96k, mostly digital interconnect. Nothing really new as far as technology goes. So... I have a bit of daisy chaining with Lightpipe connecting all the gear, in addition to some analog(won't bore you with the details, unless someone asks). I record the show while mixing live, the recorded tracks are straight off the pre's. Next day at pre-soundcheck, I hit play on the HD24 and play the tracks though the 01V96 into the PA system, of course there is the lack of stage sound from the players,(most instruments are direct anyway) but it saves time before the "real" soundcheck(my time versus my time and 5 musicians waiting while I eq things). This has all been done before by other engineers, but it is really cool and very valuable to me as now I have the technology to do it.
On some live gigs where the budget is not so great for my services, I record the same way(with or without the 01V96), and then rent the HD24 by the week or day to the group to mix the tracks though their own analog console(they do not have a DAW system). They don't want to pay for my mixdown time, but they want a live recording.
So, by using the HD24 in combo with my Metric Halos and 01V96, I have three ways to mix, if needed and each serves a different purpose.
#1 HD24 through 01V96.
#2 Tracks played through Metric Halo mix engine.
#3 And most powerful, tracks imported into DP to mix.
A bit of a tangent here, but just some examples of what is possible using the HD24 and other methods of recording and mixdown. I might get some flames here, but I hope what I offer may inspire others to think OTB or ITB>

[Gilliland]

Originally Posted by ArnieInTheSky

The unplugging of the device was intentional. It was to test the device. I should point out it was the Fostex and not the Alesis.

I assumed that it was intentional. But since you were replying to a note that was specifically about the HD24, I assumed that you were using one as well. I haven't used the Fostex, but it appears that it may have at least one virtue over other recorders.

[C/G]

This is a great thread since I am considering looking at both the Tascam and the Alesis lately. Good info here.

I would like to run it in conjunction with a UA 2192 converter used as the master clock source and all my out board pres, then do what others are doing and dump into pro tools, using a 002 and edit ect.

[Jim Williams]

I modified a Tascam MX when they came out. I was considering buying one. That ended quickly. It had problems. It sounded poor, even with good converters and great analog. It even sounded weak running through external converters, something was amiss in the playback. Good luck with the vaporware X-48.

So I got the Alesis. The converters were OK, not stellar. Still, it was better than the ADAT's by far. I installed the EC-2 kit when it was released. It uses AKM4393 dacs and 5393 adc's, same adc's as the Radar 96, same as the Masterlink. The analog and power supply were reworked as well. It's a great sounding machine. I ran it against Roger Cain's Radar 96 and I liked the alesis better, it had better transients and a deeper bass response. I'm enjoying the $11k I saved. Feed it with first rate converters like the Crystal 5381 adc or the amazing BB pcm1792 and it's top notch. Since I record accomplished players that need no computer hand holding, it's all I need to accent all that hard wired outboard gear. DAW's are for the rest, I still record like it's 1970.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades

[tuRnitUpsuM]

Same here... leaning much closer to the hd24xr though.

plan is to send/recieve audio to and from a console to the hd24. i will run a daw as well ....

quick question to all the hd24 users... i was under the impression that in order to use the converters the audio must be coming from the hard-drive... and that it wouldn't through-put the signal without the HD. true? false?

so say a daw with rme 9652 connected to the hd24 through lightpipe... would the signal from the daw (all 24 tracks) run through the hd24 converters without having to re-record the daws output? (mind u either way is exceptible...can always use another back-up).

cheers


p.s dont mean to hijack...

[synthoid]

Originally Posted by tuRnitUpsuM

Same here... leaning much closer to the hd24xr though.

Good choice.

quick question to all the hd24 users... i was under the impression that in order to use the converters the audio must be coming from the hard-drive... and that it wouldn't through-put the signal without the HD. true? false?

I use my HD24XR with no hard drive installed routinely. I put it into "All Inputs" mode and it simply passes input to output. For any of the 24 inputs, you can select the source to be the ADC or the ADAT input. It then sends this input to both the ADAT output and the analog output.

-synthoid

[tuRnitUpsuM]

Synthoid

I use my HD24XR with no hard drive installed routinely..............It then sends this input to both the ADAT output and the analog output.

cheers ....


wasn't sure about that... i remember trying to dig some info awhile back and someone questioned some of the 8-16 channel options especially for console to daw to console conversion duty...and for some reason the thing about it not outputing signal without HD involvement stuck with me...good stuff to know cus its easy on the wallet without sound quality comprise (least too much of one).

cheers again

[GooberNumber9]

I want to second the notion of the HD24 being a good ADDITION to a DAW, as opposed to being instead of a DAW.

Picture this:
MBox 2 w/ PTLE and HD24

Track into the HD24 (optional: create a click track in PT and print it to the HD24). Use the firewire interface to dump the HD24 tracks into ProTools. Edit and mix in ProTools.

Now you don't have to deal with using a Digi002 for tracking. You don't have to worry about computer problems during tracking, and you can get the ProTools mixing and editing capabilities for only $450 US for an MBox2 (or you can go MBox 2 Pro for 96 kHz). You can even do overdubs in ProTools using external converters or whatever.

Of course it's not ideal and it's not PT|HD. Tracking multiple takes of drums to an HD24 isn't exactly fun. For the price, it's pretty awesome, though.

Todd