DAW or Portastudio?

[BJG145]

Wasn't that before Spotify though?

[damoore]

If he had had a DAW, maybe he could have bought a place where he didn't have to tear up the garden to build a studio!

But I happen to think you are right to concentrate on making music rather than technology.

[Richie Royale]

Jarre had just a small 8 track and only a few synths with a Korg Minipops and Smallsttone Phaser for Oxygene recorded in the Kitchen of his Paris flat.

The success of the album enabled him to buy a mansion in Croissy and build a proper studio in the garden.

Just to clarify, his eight-track was a Scully:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/ ... mjarre.htm

I just had three or four synthesizers and was using a Scully eight–track and a mixture of Ampex 256 and 3M tape.

Not exactly small :

http://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/ManufacturersScull...

[matt222]

Thanks for the advice everyone on this, even though I went the opposite way than the majority recommended.

I understand the superior power of a DAW but felt as a humble beginner, I would play around with the Tascam, see how far it takes me and upgrade if I feel the need later. After all, it's only 300 quid so if it lasts me a year it's no loss if I sell it on.

[Richie Royale]

There is nothing wrong with working on a portastudio. You may find, in time, it has restictions you don't like, by which time a DAW may be the next step to take. Enjoy the process - making music should be fun.

[nathanscribe]

I dabbled recording synths with the little Tascam digital 4-track when I was moving house a couple of years ago - it was just 16-bit recording and very limited, but working like that really makes you think about the actual music, instead of just noodling around and getting distracted by pretty things. Wayyyy back I used to sequence using an MMT-8 and record the stereo output of a 12:2 mixer, so everything was arranged and rehearsed before hitting record. It's a valuable and valid method, I think. Despite their many advantages, one of the major drawbacks of a DAW setup is that you can endlessly faff with things and totally lose direction much more easily than when you're using the more limited all-hardware stuff. Though of course it depends how you like to work, and everyone will have different experiences.

Anyway, enjoyment is paramount. Have fun and you'll be more productive

[Urthlupe]

Congratulations Matt. you carefully considered the options and made an informed choice. Would love to hear your music when you're ready.

Have FUN....

Loopy

[matt222]

Yep, about 22 years ago on my 18th birthday, I cycled 10 miles to buy a second hand tascam 4 track portastudio and never switched that and my Casio keyboard off for a year!

So same experience repeated in a way, albeit with far better gear this time.

I think that's how I'm going to start - recording the mixes I've created so far from the mixer and let that be my starting point, adding from there.

Here's something that I'm not too sure about: My Akai sequencer is master to all my synths so far and sends sync to my TR-8 and D2 Delay.

To sync the Tascam DP32, so it records as the sequencer starts, which should be master - the recorder or the sequencer?

[nathanscribe]

To sync the Tascam DP32, so it records as the sequencer starts, which should be master - the recorder or the sequencer?

Personally, I'd be tempted to use the Akai as master.

Depending on whether the Tascam has a pre-record bar or two, or some similar buffer, I'd also be tempted to add an empty bar or two to the start of your sequences so the Tascam doesn't miss out on any audio right at the start. I really don't know how the Tascam deals with that.

[matt222]

Is there anything available to solve the problem of running out of MIDI THRU's ? Most of my gear only has IN/OUT.

The Akai has 4 MIDI OUT's but I've maxed out all the THRU's in my rig so as yet, no way of connecting to the Tascam.

The Akai does have a second dedicated 'sync' MIDI IN.

[Kwackman]

There are MIDI through boxes.
Google "MIDI through box", or MIDI thru box".

[matt222]

Ace! I remember these now.

With a maximum cable length of 5m, is it true that problems can arise from connecting too many devices from the same MIDI OUT ?

[Wonks]

All MIDI through ports should be electronically driven and not just wired directly from a MIDI input to a MIDI through port. The problems are when the 'through' port on a device is not a true through port but the device first inputs the incoming MIDI message before outputting it on the through port. This will happen on any combined MIDI out/through port, but some through ports operate like this regardless.

This processing adds latency in the signal, so too many of these and the timing is going to be well out for the last device on the daisy chain. Which is why it's preferable to use a MIDI spitter device and star-wire the MIDI signals out from there.

[The Elf]

With a maximum cable length of 5m, is it true that problems can arise from connecting too many devices from the same MIDI OUT ?

I use some MIDI cables twice that length and I am running a studio with 30+ synths/modules through MIDI interfaces powered solely by USB. Choose a decent powered thru box, such as a Kenton, and I very much doubt you will have any trouble.

[Exalted Wombat]

Thanks Urthlupe, Yes I read the 80's article and one thing that I took from it is that 80's music sounded like 80's music because of the limitations of the equipment that was available then.

Good God, no!
80's music sounded like 80's music because THOSE musicians played THOSE notes.

[Exalted Wombat]

Is there anything available to solve the problem of running out of MIDI THRU's ? Most of my gear only has IN/OUT.

The Akai has 4 MIDI OUT's but I've maxed out all the THRU's in my rig so as yet, no way of connecting to the Tascam.

The Akai does have a second dedicated 'sync' MIDI IN.

Have you actually bought the PortaStudio or merely made the decision? You keep giving us reasons why you'd enjoy the flexibility of a DAW.

Anyway, following your philosophy of the virtue of limitations, maybe only being able to track 4 synths at a time is an advantage!

[matt222]

Yes, I've bought the Tascam, it's due for delivery tomorrow.

The most devices I've got in a daisy chain from one OUT is three, but a THRU box will drop that down to two.

I notice you recommend a powered unit and not the ones that are 'MIDI powered'?

There's a powered Kenton 5 way box on Ebay for £50, is that the kiddy?

[Exalted Wombat]

Yes, I've bought the Tascam, it's due for delivery tomorrow.

The most devices I've got in a daisy chain from one OUT is three, but a THRU box will drop that down to two.

I notice you recommend a powered unit and not the ones that are 'MIDI powered'?

There's a powered Kenton 5 way box on Ebay for £50, is that the kiddy?

Before you buy more gear, map it all out. Do you need EVERY synth you own to be permanently connected? Do enough of them only need one or two MIDI channels (and can be set to recognize just those channels) to make daisy-chaining feasible? How many of them are keyboard synths that you'll want to use as input controllers, actually PLAYING them?

[matt222]

I have all my synths connected so I can play / sequence them instantly as the urge takes me.

The ASQ10 can play through 4 outs over 16 MIDI channels so thats 64 separate tracks.

The ASQ10 sends SYNC through one out only, so now, with the Kenton ( which I've just bought ), I can have all devices I want synced ( TR-8, D-2 Delay, Tascam, and JP8000 for synced arpeggiators ) connected to one out going through the Kenton.

I have done some drawings of my 'MIDI MAP' and this will now mean that each of the sequencer's other 3 outs will feed only 2 synths each, and all synced devices from the 4th via the Kenton.

My MIDI MAP details the devices and their recieve channels, which sequencer OUT they are fed from, and how everything is linked.

I use the JD800 as a master keyboard for inputting note data to the sequencer. I sometimes swap if I want input slider/controller data from a specific synth.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Jarre had just a small 8 track and only a few synths with a Korg Minipops and Smallsttone Phaser for Oxygene recorded in the Kitchen of his Paris flat.

The success of the album enabled him to buy a mansion in Croissy and build a proper studio in the garden.

Just to clarify, his eight-track was a Scully:

https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/ ... mjarre.htm

I just had three or four synthesizers and was using a Scully eight–track and a mixture of Ampex 256 and 3M tape.

Not exactly small :

http://museumofmagneticsoundrecording.org/ManufacturersScull...

Mos def! And those "few" synths were all top notch pro machines back then, none of them cheap particularly the RMI Harmonic synth.

But it's all about vision, not the gear.

[matt222]

Yes, and what strikes me is that album sounds amazing and significant now. But today, those recording methods are considered ancient and for good reason.

You may know, a few years ago, Jarre re-released Oxygene and claimed he completely re-recorded the entire album on the original instruments from scratch. He clearly didn't. He just remixed the original multitracks and re-mastered it. But to me, the original sounds the best.

So when pondering on what form of recording system to buy to get instantly creative, I used it as a reference to sort of reassure myself that even if I don't start with the ultimate and most up to date set up, I can still maybe and hopefully make something decent.

[Scramble]

But today, those recording methods are considered ancient and for good reason.

They are? I thought every rock musician with a bit of money was going back to using tape and old analogue gear?

You may know, a few years ago, Jarre re-released Oxygene and claimed he completely re-recorded the entire album on the original instruments from scratch. He clearly didn't. He just remixed the original multitracks and re-mastered it.

Well, he either did re-record it, or he's a tremendous liar:
https://www.soundonsound.com/sos/feb08/ ... mjarre.htm

[matt222]

I don't know whether they are or not, I'm a total layman here just fishing for advice and education from the experts including yourself.

Jarre did not re record Oxygene from scratch with all the original instruments regardless of what that article suggests. The late Francis Dreyfuss found the claim that he did somewhat annoying and acted accordingly, hence the resulting legal squabble.

Scramble, you may find some related articles on that matter and post accordingly.

[Scramble]

Like I said, I'm no Jarre expert. It's rather astounding if he didn't re-record it, given what he's said in that article.

[Scramble]

Using tape and old recordings methods are hot today (although there are also plenty of people, including some here, who were glad to see the back of tape and don't want to go back there again).