Re: [Harp-L] Re: Home recording
Ken, thanks so much for the input, i have made the corrections and updates to vista after reading the manufacturer's site for support letters, also purchased the recording software that you suggested in your earlier posting, i didn't really know from the instructions how all this interfacing relates, i was oversimplfying the process for sure, but it has been interesting and hopefully it will be a vauable tool.......this forum has been a great learning place it is appreciated.....joe g landisville pa
Ken Deifik <kenneth.d@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: Joseph,
If you have learned on the forums that you'd be able to record to disk
under Windows XP, I suggest you create a duel-boot system with XP as your
other boot partition. There are zillions of websites out there now that'll
show you how to do that. If you have an old XP disk this is a snap.
In any case, to use a hardware interface routed into your computer is a
legitimate solution, but recording to casette or CD makes absolutely no sense.
With a casette you'll lose all the great quality you'll get from recording
digitally, and with a CD you will not be able to fix mistakes.
There HAS to be a way to use your system to record to your hard
drive. Nobody ever uses a casette machine as their main recording medium
in digital recording, and I'm sure that the company that makes your
hardware device did not intend it for that use. The standard everywhere is
recording to hard drive. I'd contact the company and ask them if there is
a Vista issue, and if using XP would change things.
The compatibility issues with Vista are simply horrible, especially where
hardware is concerned.
At 09:57 AM 4/16/2008, you wrote:
>hi all, i have been watching the letters on home recording and
>have recently purchased a line 6 pro- tone recording and modeling
>interface/ tone port ux2 at a popular internet site. i had no problem
>hooking it up and getting my harp playing into the headsets,,,,but i
>thought i could record on my computer with this thing and after a bunch of
>updates and other downloads, i still can't figure out if i have to hookup
>my cassette recorder to this thing or buy a cd recorder even though i have
>excellent software on my computer to do this, i do have vista on my
>computer and found out through forums it wouldn't work.... then i found a
>sun program that helps to get around the 64 bit issue, and will be seeing
>if that works later today, so anyway i am no pro either as a player or as
>a person who just wants to dabble with recording, but it has been pretty
>frustrating and i am still trying to figure out why i can't just push a
>button and play into the mike and record a
> track....computer challenged in ...landisville pa thanks joe g
>
>Robert Ross wrote: RICHARD HUNTER WROTE:
>This I really don't get. One of the great things about having a
>good
>recording program is that you can mix "in the box," i.e. inside the
>computer--you don't need to bother with the external hardware. You
>don't
>need the control you get from the mixer if all you need is a couple
>of
>inputs--you only need the mixer if you're making recordings that
>require
>8-16 inputs, and even then you can put the inputs on the audio
>interface and mix in the box.
>
>---------------
>
>Since Gary is a top player, I looked at my thoughts in the light that
>he probably wants to lean in the direction of better quality and a
>clear upgrade path to more tracks and more serious recording.
>Firewire ports and mixers give him that choice in my opinion for just
>a slight increase in cost these days. Although USB 2.0 is adequate,
>the reason so many music pros use Mac is Firewire I believe. Of
>course, I am not such a pro, though I did a lot of research and
>asking around when I bought my setup 2 years ago - a long time in the
>digital world - which is why I ended up recommending
>HomeRecording.com for more input.
>
>I guess you are right about most people not being able to actually
>hear the difference between 44.1kHz and 96kHz. Higher track count as
>you mentioned, is just one factor in that, which I do think is
>important because you may start out wanted to record just two
>musicians, but later as you get into it may want to be able to do
>much more than that with your setup. But as for the 24/96, why do so
>many professional studios record and master in 24/96?
>
>As a pro, limiting Gary to MP3 quality doesn't make sense. Secondly,
>think like a photographer. You buy a 10 Megapixel digital camera even
>if you are printing only 3 Megapixel files. You can't distinguish
>between 10MP and 3MP output on a 4x6 print, just like you can't hear
>the difference bettwen 44.1 and 96 kHz. However applying color
>correction on 10MP images and then downsampling to 3MP for printing
>produces a much higher quality result than doing the editing directly
>in the 3MP files.
>
>Recording studios do the same thing by recording and processing audio
>files at 96kHz, then downsampling, which in theory, produces higher
>fidelity files than doing processing in 16bit / 44.1kHz. Who knows
>where Gary is going to go with this. The cost difference between
>slightly better, more capable equipment and the low end is not that
>much these days at all. I wasn't talking high end stuff here. My $300
>Alesis mixer can do 24/96 - even my hand held Multitrack field
>recorder can do it. Of course, if you have to be on a tight budget,
>then a simple audio interface and a couple of decent vocal mics will
>start you out for under $300. Not knowing Gary's budget, I suggested
>a range of options. But for myself, even on a budget I'd want a setup
>I could grow into and that could grow with me.
>
>As for the mixer on the front end, that is my personal preference as
>I said. Of course I was recording myself with Garageband long before
>getting a mixer. For me it was a pain to mix in the computer while I
>am actually playing and recording myself at the same time. It is much
>more intuitive to reach over, in the flow, grab a knob I can see in
>the real world to adjust the mixer than it is to go to the PC, grab
>the mouse, move the cursor to the right spot and make and make my
>adjustments. I am very digital, having bought my first portable
>computer in 1981, my first cell phone in 1989, and built my first web
>site in 1995. I live in a very digital world - yet even for me some
>things are just more comfortable and natural in their analog form.
>
>- Robert
>www.rawfoodlife.com
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better friend, newshound, and
>know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>_______________________________________________
>Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
>Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>
>_______________________________________________
>Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
>Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
>http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and
MHonArc 2.6.8.