New Tascam Model 24: Reactions?

[filip.celen]

I'm considering purchasing one of these

just stop

- Is there any way to utilize a USB channel to act as an insert? i.e. I want to route audio coming in from say a microphone, to my computer to use a VST effect, but have it print the effect when
+writing to the MTR (on a different channel). I know there are the 2 inserts on channels 1 and 2 which I would use for my rack gear, but wasn't sure if this could be done somehow using the USB
+interface and some creative use of the aux/sends/inserts, etc. Just wondering if anyone has tried anything like this. I realize there could be some extra latency introduced.

Pretty shure you can do it, but personally i had some problems with M24 acting as an interface

- Pretty sure the answer to this is no based on the manual

yeah good luck with the manual

, but is there any way to shuffle tracks around on the MTR? I won't have a lot of stuff connected and to utilize all the tracks I picture
+having to swap cables a lot. Also, only the first 2 channels have hi-z and inserts which are nice to have available. If not, I'm hoping a firmware update might enable this. Just a simple, move

not getting this part

+track #1 to track #3, for example in your project.

Model 24 can't do this in the box (maybe you can change filenames on SD card externally)



And one more thing I forgot earlier - Bluetooth is a crap also, checked on many devices - signal drop outs, clicks, interferences...

 

[telengard]

Thanks for the feedback, I take it you had and returned the unit? What kind of issues were you having with the USB interface, audio dropouts?

All I meant by the part about shuffling tracks was the ability to say record to the MTR on track 1 and then move what was recorded onto track 2 of the MTR. This would free up the channel strip of track 1 again (which has hi-z switch).

I did end up purchasing one for a good price and am enjoying it so far. I do like how you can switch between line in/usb/mtr with a switch. Reminds me a little of the switch on my 424 mkii. The build quality isn't amazing, but it should hold up OK for studio use (which is how I'm using it).

I do hope they add a few new features, I see they just added stereo mix export and support for 512G sd cards with a recent firmware update.

I'd like to see the ability to move recorded MTR tracks around, and maybe a metronome which my Zoom L12 had.

 

[lastmonk]

My group is planning to get the Tascam Model 24.

The intention is to use the Model 24 as a mixer/recorder during live gigs., record the basic performances, and then do the mix down and any real processing and mastering on our DP 24 SD.

From our perspective the Tascam DP 24 and the Model 24 are complementary. We will use them both together. The Model 24 captures the raw live performance, and the DP 24 gives us the studio capabilities. This gives us the complete solution. Up until now we've been recording our gigs with a
DR 05, DR 40.

The plan is to drag and drop the files between the music folder on the Model 24 and the Audio Depot on the DP 24.

 

[hilltopstudios]

Have you verified thru Tascam that this is actually doable? The Music folder and the Audio Depot are two different animals. Phil has always warned us the ZZ files are internal system data. The Model 24 is a much different type of recorder from the DP 24. I suppose you can always export/import from the 2 machines Audio Depot folders but each track will have to be converted separately.

 

[lastmonk]

Yes the goal is to take them over from the Model 24 one track at a time. Takes a couple of minutes. I'm only interested in the raw wav file from the Model 24, I'll get it one way or another. Yea I'm familiar with the folder structures on both machines. The wav files from the Model 24 will be imported to tracks on the DP 24.

If you could not do this i.e export wav tracks from the Model 24, into the DP 24 you also would not be able to export them to a DAW

 

[David Porter]

Yeah - I'm thinking it's very doable... as you'll simply be taking the live tracked performance stems/wav's from the Model 24 and simply importing them into the DP. Sounds to me like a very straight forward but powerful set up. A great solution for a gigging/rehearsing band that wants to polish the captured tracks.

Good thinking!

Look at the raw recording power that you have for only (roughly) $1500.00. Amazing.

 

[SocProf]

It occurred to me when first read the Model 24 specs that it could complement a DP 24 or 32.

Also, it looks like there is new firmware update:
https://tascam.com/us/support/news/5885

 

[lastmonk]

Yeah - I'm thinking it's very doable... as you'll simply be taking the live tracked performance stems/wav's from the Model 24 and simply importing them into the DP. Sounds to me like a very straight forward but powerful set up. A great solution for a gigging/rehearsing band that wants to polish the captured tracks.

Good thinking!

Look at the raw recording power that you have for only (roughly) $1500.00. Amazing.

Well our group has Motif Synth, Acoustic Guitar, Drums, Alto, Baritone Sax, Flute, Electric Guitar, Bass Guitar, & Vocals. In practical terms the Model 24 is a necessary move for us for live performance. We are very happy to see an affordable dedicated recording solution for live performances.

The computer recording solutions for live performances simply caused our group too many problems.

1rst we used a Mac + Cubase. Macs are nice, but they are general purpose computers, so while it was running our Cubase, it was also running other software, logging functions, daemons, device drivers, all kinds of stuff running at the same time as Cubase. This caused the software to not behave reliably on simply too many occasions When it worked, it was nice, but we had about a 7/10 chance that we would make it to the end of the gig without some kind of software problem. Hell, we even caught people in the audience hacking our Mac right during the performance. All of this caused us to switch to the DR-05 and DR-40 Pocketstudios. These are extremely reliable, but we really couldn't record everyone on their own track. So the Model 24 is perfect for our needs.

I know many folks take the DAW route, but general purpose computers have problems under high audio or video loads. Which in the end causes them to be fickle, and the more you try to lock them down, the fickler they get Not to mention security concerns when in public. We always had to make sure the wireless was turned off. In some of the clubs we would have audience members trying to piggyback off our wireless, take remote control of the screen, etc.

Single purpose computers e.g DR 05, DP 24, just don't have those kinds of issues. When we tried to reliably use Cubase for our gig recording, we had to first worry about the reliability of the Cubase software making sure there weren't any interrupt conflicts, or race conditions, then we had to remember to turn the Macs wireless off (we often forgot to), We also had to make sure we stopped all unnecessary software, and that the system load was at minimum, and worry if all the maintenance daemons had finished running, etc. Then we had to worry about the audio interface cabling, and distance interference. So much hassle involved we needed to have two sound men, once for the audio/mixer stuff and a separate guy to deal with all the computer related stuff.

All that went away when we got rid of Cubase and the Mac. We did lose the ability to track each instrument, but we gained higher quality more reliable (but less flexible) recordings.

And you're right $1500 gives us a complete solution, and there are no subscription fees, software incompatibilities, version chasing, dongles, latency, or security concerns to worry about.

We think the Model 24 for live recording + the DP 24 for mix down/mastering is going to do the trick

@SocProf I wonder whether they'll bring that 512mb SD card capability to the DP 24/32. I'm not quite sure why they would be able to update the firmware for Model 24 but not the DP 24/32 to do the same thing.

 

[SocProf]

The DPs can't even use SDXC cards, so they top out at 32 gb. It would be too great a leap to get to 512 gb capability.

Have you considered recording tracks with the Model 24 then doing the production with Cubase?

 

[-mjk-]

@lastmonk I admire how well you articulated your points, and I couldn't agree more. It always baffled me how people could suggest they could do anything serious on a machine used for email and watching porn, lol. I wouldn't even consider using a DAW without a purpose-built dedicated machine specifically optimised for audio recording, and with SSDs.

 

[lastmonk]

Yea, what many users don't realize is that in addition to any software you may be using on the computer the operating system on the computer has a list of tasks that it always has to perform. So even when the user isn't doing something on the computer the operating system is always busy doing something. Its always running background tasks. A really beefed up computer usually can do this without interrupting the end user too much. But the operating system is always busy. The fact of the matter is software is getting more complex, more demanding, more layers, requiring more and more resources. The general purpose computer is multitasking at all times. Throw in Internet connections, bluetooth connections, viruses, hacking and all of this is what leads to the intermittent crashes in the DAW, loss of data (music), latency, frustration, unreliability during live performance. The general purpose computer is the quintessential "jack of all trades"

The Portastudio only has to do one job and it does that very well. It has a clean and simple interface. It presents the user with a familiar metaphor. As musicians we're concerned with the music, our instruments, our audience, and we ultimately want to capture our performances and creativity. The Portastudio gives us a simple 'recording studio' metaphor. The general purpose computer + daw is something else all together. The general purpose computer has to be all things to all people. MacOSX, Windows, Linux have no idea what kind of user might be using them. So they have to present a one-size-fits-all user interface. The Daw has become so complex that it almost requires (and soon will) a college degree to effectively use it. The Daw does not present a recording studio, or performance metaphor. Its has its own metaphor that the end user simply must capitulate to.

In our band we found Cubase demanding more and more time and requiring more and more skill just to accomplish basic band performance and recording stuff The upgrades, license keys, subscription fees, e-licensing, dongles, just became untenable obstacles. We found ourselves having to learn more and more technical jargon, concepts, computer notions, etc. pulling our time away from the music, rehearsing, practicing, composing, etc. At times it seemed that Cubase was the instrument and the music and the audience Perhaps our band took the Daw thing too far But we got to point where we were performing for Cubase , and Cubase wasn't performing for us

@SocProf no we won't be adding Cubase back into our music, our performances, our rehearsals, our composing. For our band Cubase, the Daw + the general purpose computer is gone for good. As a band we've decided to leave 'Virtual Instruments' alone and focus on our real instruments. We decided to standardize on the portastudio concept, and real mixers over virtual software mixers. We've gotten rid of the audio interface and only worry about basic microphones, and standard audio cables.

At the end of the day its all about the music, the musicians, the performance, our instruments. In our case the DAW got in the way of all of that

 

[SocProf]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I recently looked at the 647 page (!) manual for the basic version of Cubase (Elements), and it was enough to give me a headache.

If you need extensive track editing, I would recommend Audacity. It's a much simpler program than any "real" DAW.

 

[lastmonk]

I heard good things about Audacity. Never used it though probably never will.
Now based on personal experience as far as DAWs are concerned I'm reminded of the words to
Dr. Seuss Green Eggs and Ham:
https://www.site.uottawa.ca/~lucia/courses/2131-02/A2/trythemsource.txt

We've have been working with Tascam DP 24 SD for a while now, and there literally is no task that we've thrown at it that it couldn't handle simply and reliably.

We also just as a group try to get a good performance right off the bat (as much as possible). Even when we do edit tracks, its usually to bring out what actually happened during the performance, not to create some ideal performance that never really happened.

When we are in the studio (where the DP 24 is at the center), the goal is to capture the moment. So some of the extensive track editing that might be done in some instances, is not for our group. In our case the less editing the better. We try to give the mix the best sound and performance that we can, and then use DP 24 to clarify that performance where possible so it can be shared.

We try to capture what actually happened as opposed to what we would have liked to have happened

 

[SocProf]

I can totally respect this music-making philosophy.

 

[Arjan P]

As a DAW and Cubase user, my experience is opposite to @lastmonk. Which is certainly not to deny his experience. I've been using Cubase since the Atari days (MIDI only) then later recorded many many songs on the Akai DPS-12 and later DPS-16 - comparable units to the Tascam DPs.

In my experience, Cubase gives me flexibility and creative power. I get an idea for an arrangement and within a few clicks I add the instrument I think of and it's there to try out. OTOH, I also used the DAW as a very easy to use multitrack recorder, recording 22 live played audio tracks (in the studio) together with the DM3200 mixer and FW interface. And yes, it can be complex, but hardly anyone uses everything from such a comprehensive program, and the software won't bother you with what you don't need. As for reliability, I've never lost recordings due to 'computer stuff' going on either in the background or foreground. But it is a purpose built PC, specified to the use I intended.

Would I use a DAW to record live performances? I'd be reluctant to do so and would certainly not do it if there wasn't a dedicated operator there. Ofcourse it would be an overspecified multitrack recorder - but still with lots of flexibility for post production. But I think your solution of combining the Model 24 and the DP sounds like a great idea.

 

[lastmonk]

Oh, @Arjan P please don't let me send the wrong message here. Cubase is an awesome DAW. Totally Awesome!!! I know many folks who use it successfully without any of the problems that my group encountered. And when it worked for us it was great! And make no mistake about it there are times when its all about midi recording and midi production. So I get the appeal of a Midi based Cubase approach. Fortunately in my case I have a Motif XF8 that is a full blown sequencer production environment in itself. I also use a Yamaha QY100. Its a dedicated hardware Sequencer. So there are very many instances where I'm not working with the band, or with acoustic instruments, and everything is digital and the recording and music production is all Midi. In those instances I compose and produce right on the 16 track sequencer/sampler that is part of the Motif XF8 (which is a totally awesome production environment), using standard Midi cables I connect to the 16 track QY100 when I need as many as 32 simultaneous tracks. When 32 tracks are not enough (which is rare) I connect to my Yamaha MOX 8 through standard MIDI cables for another 16 tracks of Midi that gives me 48 tracks dedicate midi. I also have a MM8 with 8 tracks and Clav 535 with another 16 tracks of Midi. I have a Midi Plus adapter which lets me Midi everything up, and when necessary I can put together a formidable Midi rig. But even in that case I no longer use Cubase because the dedicated Midi sequencer "personally" works better for me. I prefer the music/recording metaphors they present.

And in my Midi session I usually mix, arrange everything on the Motif. I'll do the sub mixing on the other sequencers, or sometimes bring them to the Motif and do all the sub mixing there. And if necessary I'll playback the midi sequences and recorded it all to the DP24 and do any outboard processing I might want to do (which is also rare) with Send and Returns on the DP24. But usually the Motif has most of the compressors, effects, isolators, ring modulation, etc that I usually need for my Midi studio.

I have mixed and sub mixed and mastered as much as a 60 track song all using my Midi studio rig and the DP 24. Can a project of that size done on dedicated hardware be tedious? YEP!!!! Would it be easier on a nice 40 inch HD screen? YEP!!!! But personally for me I'll gladly endure a little extra tedium and smaller screens in contrast to all of the
downside of a computer based DAW like Cubase. Cubase has a tone of awesome features, but those features come at a cost With my dedicated Midi Studio I never have to worry about:

Daw Upgrade issues or costs
Plugin Compatibility issues or costs
Subscription fees
Plugin Version chasing
Data race and deadlock conditions
Intermittent (virtually impossible to nail down) Latency issues
Hard drive crashes
Computer Lockups
Software crashes
Viruses taking over my Midi Studio
Ransomware
Ad-ware
DRM usage challenges
Vendor backdoors necessary to validate their vendor dongles
Bizzare (Non Music or Recording) oriented user interfaces
Daw in the Cloud doomsday scenarios
Complexity Creep (More and More Plugins, More Layers of Software, More Problems)

@Arjan P you and many others may have solved these issues or never experienced them in the first place or haven't experienced them yet. More power to you Like I've said, I know many folks happy with the Cubase and Daw setups. I'm aware of many successful professionals whose entire production environment center around a general purpose computer + DAW (Cubase or ProTools). And it works for them and life is good

But personally, I'll take a dedicated Midi Recording Environment i.e. (Motif XF, QY100,etc) and a dedicated Audio Recording Environment i.e. Tascam Dp 24 over the DAW adventure any day. The convenience of the larger screen and more colors or availability of gazillions of free plugins, low cost VSTs etc, just is not enough to offset the headaches and hassles for me.

My dedicated hardware based Midi Studio and my Portastudio work together seamlessly, easily, reliably, sensibly with no nonsense. And the final product I can share with my audience, fellow musicians and engineers in the form of .wav, .mp3 and .midi files.

And when we add the Tascam Model 24 to the mix our live performances will be recorded as painlessly as a live performance can be recorded and then integrated into a digital post processing world as simply as it can be integrated. And our musicians will be able to focus more on the music, their chops, their instruments, and the performance rather than all of the shenanigans that we would "from time to time" suffer at the hands of Cubase

I can however sincerely and from very practical and personal experience recommend Tascam Portastudios for dedicated Audio Recording and Yamaha QY Series hardware sequencers e.g. (QY100, QY300, QY70,etc) for dedicated Midi Recording

For all my Cubasians , Protoolians, and Dawgineers out there, God Bless you

 

[David Porter]

Mr lastmonk - if you think of it - come back at some point and tell us how things are working out. I'd like to hear about - and to whatever degree - this will work out for your purposes.

 

[-mjk-]

@lastmonk I produced a session with a Thai band in Taipei in 2007. Dealing with the engineer in Chinese, and with the Thai musicians (who fortunately, speak Chinese), plus having to discuss the Thai lyrical content in my lousy Thai, was nightmare enough. But to walk into a "recording studio" with no console was surreal for me. There was a MIDI keyboard controller on the workstation, where a recording console should have been. Ordinarily, I engineer all sessions that I produce. Standing behind the engineer, and describing what move I wanted him to make in Cubease, was beyond ridiculous. Had there been a console, I would have instinctively grabbed whatever knob, without thinking. It was the most frustrating session I have ever experienced.

Thinking about this situation also led to to another conclusion: It seems to me that most people using DAWs are not really recording engineers, but are software specialists. Let me illustrate: My 1986 appointment book shows that I recorded 40 different artists that year. Most did 2 tunes minimum, but there were several full albums, and some EPs too. It's safe to say I engineered about 100 songs that year. I had a base studio I worked out of, but I often had to use several other studios. In any given week, I would be working with multitrack recorders:

1. 3M M-79 (Bohemian Rhapsody movie scene)
2. Studer A80
3. Sony MCI 24
4. Otari MRT 90
5. Scully 8 and 12 track

Not to mention multiple types of 2-track mixdown machines analog and digital.

Consoles:

1. API
2. SSL G
3. Neve
4. Trident
5. MCI

I'm not going to mention outboard processing gear, or the fantastic array of vintage microphones. But, I was expected to sit down at the desk and get to work straight away on whatever console/machine combination was available.

The reason that someone can do that is because all the conventions hold true across consoles and machines. They all have mic/Line inputs, EQ, sends and returns. Some are online and some are split. All you have to do is take a look at the channel strips.

Machine remote controls all arm tracks, switch between sync/playback, and locate. All have transport controls. Again, a couple of minutes and you're ready to work.

If I had to learn every DAW to the point where I could bounce from studio to studio, I would find another career. Or, I would specialise in one type and be locked into that environment forever. I wouldn't call myself a recording engineer, but rather a software specialist. This is by no means a criticism, but merely an observation. However, I will say this: I powered up my DP-32 and within 1 hour had basic tracks recorded on a tune, much like in the old days. My decades of experience fit the studio environment of the DP machine. My experience is virtually useless when I have to use the DAW except that I understand the use of EQ, FX, compression, etc.. Getting them to work is another story.

 

[lastmonk]

@mjk yep, that's a dilemma. Virtual Instruments, Virtual Compressors, Virtual Reverb, Virtual Limiters, Virtual Amplifiers, Virtual Stages, Virtual Orchestras are all cheaper to produce, upgrade, manufacture, distribute etc.

Cubase, Protools, Logic are the primary platforms for the virtual equipment and instruments. But Cubase and Protools, and Logic are all getting more complex every year. So recording engineers, sound engineers, producers, arrangers, and composers are forced to pick sides. These environments are just too big and complex (and ultimately expensive) to master them all. So you are right you would have to pick one just so you could become proficient and maintain proficiency.

The world of musicians is divided into three major groups. One group uses and only knows virtual instruments, virtual studios, and virtual audio equipment. This group has no choice but to use Cubase, ProTools, Logic etc. That's all they know, and all they want to know. The second group are more traditional . They use real (physical) instruments, acoustic instruments , analog/digital gear, recording /mixing gear. This group has affinity for their instruments, their mixers, effects units, microphones, etc. The notion of virtual this, or virtual that is a turn off. The third group is a hybrid of the first two and typically will have one foot in each world.

We all have to decide what world we're going to create, perform, engineer, compose and play in.
The vendors that are selling products will pursue which ever market that appears the most profitable at the moment. With Virtual Instruments, Virtual Equipment, Virtual Studios, Virtual Orchestras etc the vendors can maximize profits, use subscription models, cut manufacturing , shipping, and storage costs. Once a piece of software is written it can be copied and distributed with almost zero cost. This is in stark contrast to physical equipment and instruments. The support savings alone is enough for the vendors to abandon the physical (if they have the capacity to produce the virtual). Unfortunately greed is driving a lot (but not all) of whats going on in the music industry.

Musicians are being devalued. Recording Engineers are being devalued. Sound Engineers are being devalued and replaced by software automation, software templates, software operators, and soon very soon by virtual AI engineers, AI musicians, and automation. We are already at a point where a good Dawgineer can replace musicians, recording engineers, sound engineers, producers, and composers for some kinds of music. The virtualization of the music/recording industry is at hand. And soon the DAW will be on a strict Pay-As-U-Go model where everything in the DAW will be priced and metered.

There are some crowds and some musicians that are perfectly fine with it and are thriving in the virtual word of virtual studios, virtual instruments, virtual orchestras,etc. More power to them go DAW!

There are other audiences/ musicians that are not having it. So ultimately you have to fine where you fit and buckle in.

Personally, I'm in the traditional camp. I'm reasonably comfortable with the Daw model. I'm actually fairly competent in the Cubase world of VSTs and plugins. I simply choose to reject the computer centered studio and the computer centered virtual stage. No DAW for me! I have a connection with my real instruments and real recording studio. So I choose the non computer centered approach to music and will ride it until the wheels come off. Basic mixers, portastudios, non DAW based approaches will still be here and in use 50 years from now Hell I've seen folks still using tape.

Interestingly there is a paradox and conumdrum underway with the Protool, Cubase, Logic centered view of the world. These environments are doing more and more, getting more complicated, and there are more people getting paid, but the people involved are making less and less. In other words in many instances (not all instances) its turning into a minimum wage proposition in the Daw world. There's more work out there for the Dawgineers but they're making less (at least in my experience). The traditional sound engineer, recording engineer doesn't have as much work, but they're making more when they do get gigs. (again this is my experience) So the Daw world is kind-a-like-a-fast-food type scenario. Lots of work but dwindling pay-per-hour though. OTOH the DAW vendors and some Plugin vendors are making a killing.

At the end of the day there is enough to go around regardless to which world you pick there are ample opportunities and possibilities. You have to pick the one that fits who you are best

 

[Clemente Cusato]

Hey! I’m new here and just got into the forums to talk and ask about the Model 24, but... since I bought it like 3 weeks ago and already catched the workflow here’s what I’ve accomplished:

1) This isn’t just an analog mixer, it’s an extension to your PC.
See... the problem aren’t DAWs, but PCs. The DAW doesn’t come with a mouse, but a PC does as well as PCs don’t come with faders, but a console does.

See: That’s the PC mode mission when working with it (Model 24) REINFORCEMENT of the mixes you do on your computer. As well as serve as an audio input to your computadora.

2) Now, when it comes to put this gear to action on the hybrid lawn you can do these things: record you instrumentals on an analog loop recorder (like the Kaoss Pad), then pass them through the mixer to your PC to rearrange and tame some dynamics. Then record them back to the console via the rec function to your SD card. Finally, record the vocals on your SD card!

3) RECORD IT LIVE! This is why this product was created in the first place. I got that recording a band is the main goal for this machine. Just watch the SW video on the matter.

Finally,

Because I’m a rap artist I do all of this. In fact, you can play with the three onboard modes to get what you desire and since the firmware version 1.31 has the option to export the stereo main mix to your PC via the storage mode, everything works. You just need to know how to mix analogly and then you’re set! I adore this gear because it’s pretty much what I need before going full analog and buy a standalone sampler and an API The Box.

Peace!