The best digital recorder?

[jfrog]

Someday, hopefully not soon, my trusty Fostex VF-08 will croak. For the most part, I've been happy with the VF. If is does ever die, I'll most likely replace it with the VF160 or VF160EX or whatever.

OR WILL I?

Which brings me to my question:

- What is the best* 16 track recorder for the $$$ ? Is it the Fostex, or something else?

- What are you people** using? Do you like it? Why or why not?

Thanks,

JR


*yes, I realize "best" is subjective. But so are most of the people who will respond.

**This isn't to say that non-humans can't respond.

[Treeline]

I don't know about "best," but the landscape keeps changing. Korg has some strong stuff with lots of connectivity; Fostex has some clever storage designs, but I would opt for 24 / 96 or 24 / 192 recording performance as the first benchmark of 'better, best." Any design still limited to 16 bit (like a lot of the .mp3 junk) isn't going to be worth the effort. Make .wav file storage a must. Good connectivity means multitrack connectivity - which will require USB2 or firewire ports.

My portable unit is an old AKAI DPS16 - it is a great machine, but hit the market right before the USB and firewire standards stabilized and has niether. Connectivity is not particularly versatile, althought the signal quality is excellent. It will record 4 channels simultaneously at 24 / 96 and has a 20 Gig hard drive.

My main gig mixer is a Mackie ONYX with a firewire card; great preamps and will record 18 channels simultaneously. I connect it via firewire to my laptop running Reaper and dump all file storage to an external LaCie drive. Works pretty well so far... Maybe you could think about incorporating a higher end interface with a laptop.

Finally - Look at Karmer's thread on the Tascam 2488 - 24 tracks, 24 bit, now $800.

[Sloop]

If you are looking for a stand alone. I really like my Roland 2000CD. While it isn't being made, too much competition with the 2400CD, you can get them used for a descent price.

You can record 8 tracks at once, lots of ability within the unit. Having the full size monitor really makes it nice to operate and it is easily portable. I have a case for mine for on location recordings.

For the price, it really nice. I have a friend with the 8 input unit with Pro-tools and ocassionally it "hiccups" during use. Maybe I have been lucky, but I press record on my unit and it works...Plus the pro-tools with the interface was a lot more expensive.

[jfrog]

[Spaceman Spliff]

Another vote for the VS2000. Probably not the 'best,' but the ability to hook it up to a VGA/Mouse/Keyboard is great, and, so too, is the ability to add 3rd party plugins, like the LA-2A, Or TC3000 Reverb, or TRackS. USB 2 backup, generally works right out of the box, and, as Sloop said, discontinued, so should be available cheaply.

Probably best bang for the buck, imo.

[chrisnickey64]

i'm no pro but for my puroses i think that the ones that korg makes are pretty good . i have a D1600MKII (saddly now discontinued) i am still discovering new things it can do !! i've had it for 1 1/2 Yrs. it's sturdy, reliable, sounds as good or better than my friends PC set up (sonic foundry???) and i got it new w/1 Yr. warranty for......... 540.00 USD ! not bad if i do say so my self!!! [/b][/i]

[loutus]

I can't say enough about My Roland 2480 HD. It has really brought me back to reality and away from always fiddling with my PC. It is simply awesome. Yes its old technology now but it just works and sounds awesome. And 16 tracks at once is what it all about for doing live recordings.

[jfrog]

[Lt. Bob]

I think if I were to buy an all-in-one unit I'd really check out that Tascam. 24 channels for $800 looks hard to beat.

[loutus]

Roland vs 2000
http://www.roland.com/products/en/_support/om.cfm?ln=en&dsp=0&iCncd=315

I believe the tascam 2488 only records eight tracks at once.

[Lt. Bob]

[loutus]

I only use my 2480 for live venue recordings, which it does wonderfully.
I too rarely use more than 4 tracks at home, in which case I use a RME system.
The Fostex 1624 was a great machine but correct me if I'm wrong but will it not only record 16 tracks with the addition of an external adat device.
The reason I love the 2480 is it ability to do 16 out of gate; and mouse, keyboard and VGA monitor but me into familiar territory.

[Lt. Bob]

nope ..... I record all 16 tracks all the time. It will only do 8 simultaneously without some sort of additional device but I care so little about that that I don't even know what it would take to add that capability. I believe it just needs a mixer that'll use that huge multiplug input, but don't quote me on that 'cause I'm not totally sure.
If I were to buy a new machine I would almost certainly buy the newer HD 2424.
For me, the ability to use outboard gear like I do and route anything anywhere I want it WAY outweighs the 8 track simultaneous limitation. But I do recognize that live work is a different matter. But for what I do .... actually, I loath the All in one boxes. I helped a friend of mine finish his CD on a Roland ....... hmmmmm kinda forgot but maybe an 1880? Something like that ..... I absolutely hated the limitations on mixdown. With my rig I can do anything EQ wise differently on all 16 channels ..... I can (if I wished) run a different delay or 'verb or both to each of the 16 channels. There are absolutely no limitations whatsoever on how I can patch or insert FX units or EQ or whatever. Having a seperate board and a recorder that'll seperately output all 16 channels is just far superior for mixdown. On Reubens' Roland ..... he had only a few different FX available and to some extent any channels that were gonna have FX had to all use the same FX unless you recorded it on the track in the first place. I find that to be very limiting.
Once again, I can see where if the bulk of your recording is live then you need the maximum simultaneous channel recording.
But for me, I'm more interested in having the maximum routing capability at mixdown.
Just two different needs .... different strokes for different folks. I can't imagine needing more than 8 simultaneous channels recording unless I did live band recordings and even then, I'm usually just wanting a decent record of the event. I'm already setting up PA ... my guitar rig ... my saxes ..... about all I'm willing to add to that load is to set up a few stage mics and a line from the board. And I get pretty good live recordings like that ...... better than much of the multichannel stuff that I hear people do. More effort than that and I just wouldn't record gigs at all 'cause ultimately my first responsibility is to the performance and I have to use a live rig that I can quickly set up and forget about. I don't record other people ...... just don't really care to ..... I make a living playing music so the last thing I'm gonna do on my 2 or 3 nights off a month is go record someone else's band.
Not arguing the point really ..... just explaining why my personal choices are what they are.