Recording your songs without a computer

Elektron Gear Octatrack
#41

Maybe no proper soundcard?[/quote]
your right there :slight_smile:

I might have a few recording devices, but I do not have a propper soundcard, or even a propper computer… just a 3rd hand laptop… ancient as rome…
I am sure, i am not the only one…[/quote]
I don’t own a soundcard either, and my laptop’s 8 years old.

And anyways, the field recorded is always there ready to record and only requires minimum button presses to start recording. I love it, as opposed to fighting against a computer, badly coded drivers, bad hardware and so on.

Simplicity is the key!

#42

Maybe no proper soundcard?[/quote]
your right there :slight_smile:

I might have a few recording devices, but I do not have a propper soundcard, or even a propper computer… just a 3rd hand laptop… ancient as rome…
I am sure, i am not the only one…[/quote]
I don’t own a soundcard either, and my laptop’s 8 years old.

And anyways, the field recorded is always there ready to record and only requires minimum button presses to start recording. I love it, as opposed to fighting against a computer, badly coded drivers, bad hardware and so on.

Simplicity is the key![/quote]
+1
Couldn’t have said it better … Barfunkel
I also don’t own a soundcard either and my laptop is 8 years old

#43

There’s nothing wrong with recording straight into a computer daw. But for me I don’t want to have the computer in the room because I will get distracted and start coming here or playing on the Internet. Yeah I should just have more self control and not use the computer but more often than not the Internet wins out.
Also a field recorder would double nicely as, well, a field recorder. Recording to tape (reel to reel) can also have sound benefits, that is if you like the aesthetic. Squarepusher used to just record to an old 8 track reel to reel, most of his early albums were done like that.

#44

Not having to set up your laptop, your interface and your DAW every time you want to record…I realize the concept might be outside the realm of human comprehension. So I, too will use multiple question marks- One button recording?? Of hours of live play?? will this make you understand better?? [/quote]
No need to be snide, it was a legitimate question.
I am so used to using my laptop / desktop that I saw the field recorder as an extra, un - necessary step.
I’m not afraid to ask questions when I doubt something, and am usually helpful and friendly.
Thank you for your insight.
Cheers !

#45

There’s nothing wrong with recording straight into a computer daw. But for me I don’t want to have the computer in the room because I will get distracted and start coming here or playing on the Internet. Yeah I should just have more self control and not use the computer but more often than not the Internet wins out.
Also a field recorder would double nicely as, well, a field recorder. Recording to tape (reel to reel) can also have sound benefits, that is if you like the aesthetic. Squarepusher used to just record to an old 8 track reel to reel, most of his early albums were done like that.
[/quote]
Interesting :slight_smile:
My main setup does not have internet, so I can avoid the temptation that you face !
Cheers !

#46

Maybe no proper soundcard?[/quote]
Fair enough.

Although, to be completely frank, I cannot imagine someone dropping thousands of pounds on niche hardware, and not buying a soundcard. Interesting to hear that it does happen, though :slight_smile:
Cheers !

#47

Maybe no proper soundcard?[/quote]
Fair enough.

Although, to be completely frank, I cannot imagine someone dropping thousands of pounds on niche hardware, and not buying a soundcard. Interesting to hear that it does happen, though :slight_smile:
Cheers !
[/quote]

I think the logic behind is that people pay money so that they wouldn’t have to sit in front of the computer all day. That’s exactly what I’m doing, I make music so that I could get a break from using computers. Easily a luxury worth a few thousand!

1 Like
#48

Maybe no proper soundcard?[/quote]
Fair enough.

Although, to be completely frank, I cannot imagine someone dropping thousands of pounds on niche hardware, and not buying a soundcard. Interesting to hear that it does happen, though :slight_smile:
Cheers !
[/quote]

I think the logic behind is that people pay money so that they wouldn’t have to sit in front of the computer all day. That’s exactly what I’m doing, I make music so that I could get a break from using computers. Easily a luxury worth a few thousand!

[/quote]
I see !
Cool, that clarifies it :slight_smile: I love getting insight as to how others go about making music !

#49

I just reread this whole thread. A Zoom R16 came up dead cheap in my local second hand store but its pretty much the same price as a H4N so still torn. Especially now they have the zoom R8 which seems to be 24 bit (whereas the R16 is 16 bit unless you use it as an interface.

Do any of these devices use weird internal compression or sound formats? I’d like to avoid any crap like that. I think the H4N is my best bet. The size will mean I make my set up even smaller.

What are the higher end solutions ?
Tascam DP series?

#50

I record straight in to the zoom H2N when I’m doing songs for my other “project”, which are straight up jams.

( Here’s a song I did last night for that project :
https://soundcloud.com/big-end/ett-infall )

If you don’t need the four-track capabilities of the H4N, I strongly recommend the H2N.

#51

Is that the only difference then? 2 vs 4 tracks? I was only planning on sampling stuff outside with the mics and stereo out at home from the OT.
Really nice track btw

#52

The sound is supposed to be the same, but some features are missing in the H2N. Also, the h4n is made of metal, which makes it sturdier. I think the build quality is fine on the H2N for what it’s worth, but others may have other needs.

The H2N doesn’t have any multitracking capabilities, just one “track” at a time, while the H4N allows you to make a four track recordings, i.e layering your previous tracks.

Here’s a page I found describing the differences more in detail:
http://www.proaudioland.com/news/zoom-h4n-versus-h2n/

Thanks for the comment on the track!

#53

That’s interesting, 'cause I also did it with the H2. I had the feeling of loosing too much bass and overall detail with 44.1 … changed to other settings, but still did not like it too much. Compared it to direct recording within the OT, liked the OT more.
What settings do you use on the H2N?

#54

That’s interesting, 'cause I also did it with the H2. I had the feeling of loosing too much bass and overall detail with 44.1 … changed to other settings, but still did not like it too much. Compared it to direct recording within the OT, liked the OT more.
What settings do you use on the H2N?[/quote]
Ah, I see. I use 44.1hkz/24bit

Also, I forgot to mention that I did my recording from the output of a mixer, not straight from the octa outputs. Then I dropped my song into logic and bounced with normalize on. No other adjustments.

I’ve done some recordings straight from the octa outputs earlier, but the songs are so different from this one, so it won’t make a fair comparison.

#55

Just to clarify, the H2n only has one input right? So I am wondering how it records a stereo mix? one channel at a time?

#56

It has a stereo input. You could use something like a RCA -> 3.5mm tele cable.

#57

That’s interesting, 'cause I also did it with the H2. I had the feeling of loosing too much bass and overall detail with 44.1 … changed to other settings, but still did not like it too much. Compared it to direct recording within the OT, liked the OT more.
What settings do you use on the H2N?[/quote]
Ah, I see. I use 44.1hkz/24bit

Also, I forgot to mention that I did my recording from the output of a mixer, not straight from the octa outputs. Then I dropped my song into logic and bounced with normalize on. No other adjustments.

I’ve done some recordings straight from the octa outputs earlier, but the songs are so different from this one, so it won’t make a fair comparison.[/quote]
Great! Thanks. I tried it with this setting 44.1/24bit and I am quite happy with the result. It seems to loose a bit of clarity or “width” compared to a recording straight to the OT (A/B comparison over headphones) - but I see that I can use it a lot for “jam” recordings. To use a field recorder for this kind of task is easy with the handling, no problems with record length and I am happy that you reminded me of this possibility. No need for a computer then!

#58

resurrecting this thread because I was wondering if anyone has used the tascam dr-40 as it appears to be $30-75 cheaper than the zoom h4n…also the xlr inputs say they take line in as well

#59

There were aspects in this thread which really piqued my interest, so i made a test recording to get a bit of a comparison going - i started a new thread though as it’s not altogether on topic - but it’s very related

There’s a downloadable test if you want to try discern the difference between Source, Internal resampling, Field-recorder off the headphone out !