Standalone Hardware Recording vs: DAW/Software Recording

[lastmonk]

There is already support for VST for the studio.

Since the effect sends and returns on the Portastudio allow you to use any kind of VST processing you want on audio tracks in the Portastudio. Use the effect sends to send the signal to your VST then do whatever processing you want in the VST and return the signal back to the Portastudio. The Portastudio can connect to any outboard gear, or any VST. No special software or drivers are needed.

@Felonius Punk Keep in mind, that the original plugin concept was the Send/Return, Aux Send, Aux Return, on Mixing boards, and Recorders like the Portastudio. All you need is cables

You could use any VST compressor, limiter, effects unit, VST Instrument, analyzer, spectral display VST that you like with the Portastudio. You could export tracks from the DAW into the Portastudio and take advantage of the decent Mastering templates in the Portastudio.

You could take the backing tracks from the DAW put them into the Portastudio, then take the Portastudio to the gig and overdub the performance live while playing backing tracks created in the DAW

No need to choose one over the other, they both work very well together.

I personally have just made the Portastudio the center of my recording studio and not the DAW.

 

[Felonious Punk]

That is exactly what I do, @lastmonk. I use the Portastdio as the center of my studio and use my DAW as a send effect to take advantage of the vst plugins. That is not exactly what I would call support. That is a work around. I think a built in vst "loader" or "host" would be desirable in keeping with the portable theme. Since we are dreaming we may as well go big.

FP

 

[lastmonk]

I kind-a agree, and I see what you're looking for. But I would not classify the send/return feature of the Portastudio or Digital Mixers as a work-around.

The intended purpose of the send and return , aux send, or aux return, is precisely to connect to outboard gear , whether that outboard gear is hardware or software. That's is the primary purpose of the send/receive feature. So I would not characterize it as a work-around.

Also, by adding a VST loader, and VST resident capability directly on the Portastudio, you would immediately do at least 2 negative things

1. Make the User Interface to the Tascam more complicated
2. Increase the DSP (Digital Sound Processing) and Microprocessing hardware requirements of the Portastudio.

Using the send/return mechanism lets the outboard gear hardware or software do what its best at doing, and lets the portastudio focus on its primary functionality.

I get what you mean in terms of portability though. But this would be the ideal case where you would just get something like Cubase on an IPad ,Android or Notebook/laptop and take it with the portastudio to where ever you've got to be. Because at that point its not about using a big screen with the DAW its about the portability of the VSTs

In general folks don't really get the full concept of the send/return mechanism of either a portastudio or mixing board. That send/return does not require software drivers, or software. It provides a standard 1/4, 1/8 inch, etc interface between the portastudio/board and virtually any kind of audio equipment, or electronic instrument (software or hardware)

So when people say the Portastudio is a limited standalone unit, that's not quite correct. The portastudio is a complete recording solution and requires nothing else to do its job. But it literally can be interfaced to almost anything in the Analog-Digital-Audio Acoustic world. So in that respect its wide open, and not limited. Using the send/return mechanism as intended allows the user to integrate any additional kind of sound processing needed. So it truly is a complete recording solution that interoperates with the digital and the analog world.

If you want to extend the real time sound processing in the Portastudio, all that is needed is a couple of 1/4 in cables, the send/return feature and that opens you up to all of the outboard gear that is available today. And if you only need asynchronous enhancements to the sound processing in the portastudio, then the usb cable, or SD card interface opens the door to the entire digital world of processing.

So right, exactly there is no reason why the Tascam Portastudio could not be the center of the home recording studio. No reason at all.

And to be sure, things are trending back in the direction toward all-in-one hardware recorders. And a lot of newcomers are realizing they have practical, easier to use, less costly alternatives to the DAW.

In addition to the original colors on the Tascam DP 24/32, and possibly making the New Tascam Portastudio available in a deep burgundy, deep navy blue, I could see a teal or deep purple Tascam Portastudio with a 4.5 or 5 inch LCD screen fitting very nice into my setup

 

[Felonious Punk]

I envision a Portastudio using effects (vst in this case) the same way a Boss Katana does. You don't need all the available effects all the time but it would be nice to have a few more essentials on board so you can be truly portable. And when your needs change you can shuffle the vsts around to your liking the same way the Boss Katana handles its effects.

So, like the Katana, it would have an app to handle this.

I am perfectly happy using the sends though. Just dream riffing.

I would be in for a teal one. I am sure it would sound better too.

FP

 

[lastmonk]

The new PortaStudio needs to have Midi. Combining a Midi enabled Tascam DP with
the Akai MPC One:

https://www.akaipro.com/mpc-one

At the midi level would allow the ultimate hardware based Digital Audio and Midi recording solution. The MPC One is far more than just a groove box, or beat maker. Its has a full on Midi Sequencer on top of sampling capabilities,and digital audio processing. Combining the MPC One with a new Tascam PortaStudio (with Midi built in) would allow those of us who standalone hardware based studios to cover any Digital Audio, or Midi needs by connecting A Tascam PortaStudio to the MPC One

And even if there is no Midi added to a New Tascam Portastudio, we can still use send/return mechanism of the current Tascam Portastudios to integrate with MPC One.

Tascam DP 24/32 + MPC One is a total Midi + Audio recording solution all in hardware no Software DAW required.

 

[-mjk-]

I'm not looking forward to checking boxes after deciding what is or is not off topic. But a "To DAW Or Not To DAW" thread in the Recording 101 forum sounds like a good idea. I'm open to suggestions.

 

[-mjk-]

I have gone on something of a journey when building my new studio. I have never told the entire story but I think with the development of this thread, it may help others make intelligent decisions. Also, my story may drive home the argument that there is more than 1 way to accomplish most anything. There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way (unless you've blown something up!) but in this business, it's all about getting the results one needs to get.

Also, all of us, myself included, have been throwing around the term "average user" as if there were such a thing. That is not so clearly defined as we would have ourselves think. Perhaps a better distinction would be "hobbyist" vs: "professional" users of equipment. We are all on different levels and have a wide variation in capability. There is no indignity in being an inexperienced recording engineer. We all have to start somewhere. We all use whatever works for us, as it should be.

I've built studios before. More than a dozen, including radio and recording studios of differing types. The real issue for me this time around was upon what technology would my studio be built? In order to get going as quickly as possible I asked my personal network of followers to search in their various countries of origin around the world and find me a DP-32 (original, with MIDI) for sale and help me get it. That process did not take long and soon I had nice one in good condition sitting on my desk along with audio monitors. I spend the first year cutting tracks and getting great sounds as I also picked up some other things such as new condenser mics, MIDI interface etc.. The MIDI functioned perfectly and soon I had some very nice sounding tracks going.

My next acquisition was a 32 channel Soundcraft Ghost console. I used that as a front end for the DP-32 and had great results using the Ghost's EQ and mic pres. I put the I/Os on a patchbay for greater flexibility. The resulting recordings were even better.

This was all predicated on my plan of having mixing engineers whom I personally know, doing my mixing for me. The more I thought about this, the more it did not make sense for me, since I am primarily a mixing engineer - albeit a mixing engineer without a proper studio for mixing. I began to look for an economic yet very capable way of mixing, with automation. I realized that this system would have to be DAW based and that I would be exporting tracks from the DP-32 and importing them to the DAW for mixing. Many people on this forum are doing exactly that.

My wife is a professional auditor and businesswoman in Taiwan. So, I can have discussions with her about economics of business and she totally gets it. When we started talking about how many songs I was going to release and the economics of outsourcing the mixing and mastering, it began to make sense that we should invest in a digital mixing console of some sort. Not only would that make economic sense with my own music productions, that would also allow me to take outside mixing and mastering jobs as well. So, after considerable research on my part, we invested in a Behringer X32 mixing console. It cost about $1,000 USD over Sweetwater's price to purchase in Taiwan because of the import duty and shipping costs. But this unit was landed and was available in the Taiwan Behringer warehouse.

Now, for the DAW. I had a lot of reading to do. While researching the X32 console, I ran across a man named Patrick Gilles-Maillot (anyone who works with the X32 knows who Dr. Maillot is). He had written many very useful utilities for the X32 and one in particular caught my eye: X32Reaper. I downloaded and installed this amazing (and free) program. However I soon ran into an issue. I contacted Dr. Maillot about this and he very kindly opened a dialog with me. I have to give him credit as he had no idea who I was. I'm just some random user out there but he was very generous with his time.

The issue is that X32Reaper is designed to interface the X32 and make it a 32 channel DAW controller. Sure enough, it worked perfectly and allows writing automation envelopes to the DAW and also to control EQ plugins and some other types of plugins. Honestly, it's a brilliant piece of software engineering but it didn't do what I wanted.

I wanted to use the audio engines of the console and I wanted to process the audio though the console and not to control the faders on the DAW mixer and use the DAW Master Bus. Dr. Maillot was very interested in this approach and he offered to write a new mixing automation system as long as I was available to test it. I assured him of my willingness and availability for testing, and he set off to creating what became X32ReaperAutoMate.

That was more than a year and a half ago at this writing. Since then X32ReaperAutoMate has matured into an incredibly capable mixing automation system for the X32. We are still working together and we are always coming up with new functionality features. Originally, it was my intent to have him create a system that would function much like the old legacy mixing consoles such as MCI, SSL, Neve, API, and others that I used to work on in the 80s and 90s. But since we are using computer software recording and not analog tape, we also have the computer's CPU available for processing, and thus X32ReaperAutoMate has far exceeded those legacy systems because we are not limited as we would be with a legacy console and its onboard CPU and OS.

This is not a sales pitch for X32ReaperAutoMate, but it is now a commercial product. I assist Dr. Maillot with tech support since I have the most experience using it. I do not receive any financial compensation for my work with Dr. Maillot (nor do I want any such compensation).

But wait - there's more. As I used the AutoMate system more and more, I was also configuring my console for interfacing with the DAW. Eventually I installed the Dante networking card in my X32 and began to use audio over Ethernet. With much testing and diligence, I have gotten the latency to very manageable levels. The latency is low enough to use the console as a real inline recording desk, just like the Soundcraft Ghost. The way that I am using the X32 is not widely known and I have been unable to find any published accounts of engineers using the X32 as a fully integrated studio console as I am. They are typically used as DAW controllers and monitor the Master Bus. I monitor on the console's Control Room output and I do not use the DAW Master Bus.

It would be another entire discussion to explain how I Mix and Master without using the DAW Master Bus, but AutoMate has a provision for working with the Mixdown tracks and monitoring in the console for Mastering and rendering the output files. That's not really important to this story. What's important is the journey I went on and how I arrived at the place were I am now.

The Soundcraft Ghost console's bus outputs come into the Aux inputs on the X32, and all external sources (except microphones) go into the Ghost and into the X32. I get that wonderful analog color and when cutting drum tracks, I can slam the crap out of the Ghost's line inputs and yet bring the output of the Ghost's bus into the X32 at levels that are acceptable for digital recording. So, I'm working with +8 dB RMS into the Ghost, and -15 dBFS into the X32.

I have seen many comments in this and other threads that users want a system that "doesn't get in the way of recording" and I know exactly what they mean. In the old days, the studio was instantly ready to record as soon as the tracks were armed on the 24 track. The console and patchbays were in place, permanently.

My results are such that, with over a year of testing, tweaking and configuring, with my X32 system based studio (which resides on the top floor of my home) I can power up the 2 consoles and I can start cutting tracks instantly as all the routing and setup are as permanent as the old school studio. I am at the point where I can get going even faster than when I was using the DP-32, believe it or not. I am recording totally in the DAW, and mixing to stereo tracks in the DAW through the audio engines of the X32. And the best part is, I have total recall of the more than 10,000 parameters of the X32 console, including all FX, compression, EQ - you name it. The faders and encoders all move in real-time and I am able to get my mixes exactly how I want them with no compromises.

So, as @lastmonk stated (I'm paraphrasing) the gear doesn't matter - it's what you do with it. Make no mistake, I was getting world-class sounds with the DP-32. 24b/48kH is 24b/48kH no matter what you record it on. What you get for sounds is not limited by that resolution. What matters is How good of an engineer are you? The only reason that I evolved past the DP-32 is because of my desire for automated mixing. The DP-32 still proudly sits in my studio at the ready because there will always be something that makes sense to use it for recording. Plus, it really is an excellent location recorder.

So that's the entire story up to this point. I hope this helps the readers of this thread to understand that it's pointless to argue about someone's methods and that we are dealing with music which is an artistic endeavor and as such is very subjective. In this business of music, there is only one truth:

You are only as good as your last record. Do whatever it takes to make it a great one.

 

[lastmonk]

So much has to do with scale, and use cases.

Today any musician, song writer, composer, arranger, can have his/her own youtube channel, bancamp page, etc. They can get their music to distro kid:

https://distrokid.com/

and be done with it. Many musician, song writers, composer's arrangers, producers, are mixing, and mastering their own songs. And they really don't need /want industrial strength mix or mastering engineers. Standards of what constitutes high quality, or commercial quality music recording have changed dramatically from the 90's and early 2000's. Today, if it sounds okay in my IPhone ear-buds,on my Apple Watch or if its on so-and-so's playlist That's good enough! Hell, we have access to landr

https://www.landr.com/

So the argument for mass produced music, industrial grade music production has a smaller and smaller application today as many home recording artists do their own thing. And with out a doubt, hardware recorders are simpler and easier to use in every case for a musician, a song writer, especially for musicians who play acoustic instruments (e.g. violins, saxophones, acoustic, guitars, drums, harps etc) And with the release of devices like:

https://www.akaipro.com/mpc-one
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/maschine/production-systems/maschine-plus/
https://tascam.com/us/product/model_12/top

And many others, the trend for (non industrial strength mixing/mastering/music production) is toward hardware recorders. Of course all of the above solutions allow you to integrate with a DAW if you have to, but by and large, many non professional mix/mastering folks are opting out of DAWs these days for simplicity for one thing, and cost is the other. Hardware solutions are simply more cost effective in the long run. They are less expensive than their (Computer + Audio Interface + Daw + Plugin + Subscription Fees + Dongles + upgrades,etc) counterparts.

Hardware Recorders are simpler, more reliable, and more cost effective on the low to mid range of things. And that's where the majority of the recording, mixing, and mastering takes place (on the low to mid range of things)

And personally if I fancied myself a big time mix or mastering engineer I would do either:

https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/mixers/rivage_pm/index.html

or
https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/mixers/ql_series/index.html

worse case scenario, something like this:

https://www.solidstatelogic.com/products/origin

In today's democratized world of music production, where any and everybody can and does mix, master their own music for distribution, on youtube, and countless streaming services, (just get your stuff to distrokid) if I were going do the professional mix engineer, or mastering engineer route, I would have to go big or go home. I personally wouldn't be jacking around with a PC/Mac and Protools. Of course I would have a real console that had its own embedded DAW which could be Protools, Cubase, etc or something proprietary. I wouldn't be screwing around with the dongles, browser upgrades, security patches, version glitches, planned obsolescence, driver incompatibilities, subscriptions fees, and all of the rest of the DAW song & dance that is part of the PC/MAC + DAW hustle.

If you are not a professional Mix Engineer, Recording Engineer, or Mastering Engineer then hardware recorders are the easiest, most reliable, and most cost effective solution for you with very very very few exceptions. And if your are a professional mix engineer, recording engineer, or mastering engineer, maybe now is the time in order to distinguish yourself from all the other wannabes out there for you to go big,
or go home

 

[Arjan P]

@lastmonk You make some interesting points, especially about what kind of quality the current listener expects - or better said, what they put up with.. And it is a great time to be able to add your own music to the biggest platforms, between the biggest of names and NOT need some A&R manager shoot you down, because 'there is no market for your type of product'.

However, all this does not mean this type of market access is easier for those that use a hardware device, opposed to those that just use a laptop with an audio interface. I'd like to see some backup to your claim:

but by and large, many non professional mix/mastering folks are opting out of DAWs these days for simplicity for one thing, and cost is the other

 

[lastmonk]

Oh, no @Arjan P I am not saying, that using hardware recorders gives you any better access than using a Daw+Computer+audio interface. I am saying for folks who are not professional recording engineers, mix engineers, or mastering engineers, that hardware recorders are easier/simpler to use, more reliable, and more cost effective. If you're being honest with yourself, I'm sure you'll agree. Otherwise just compare the operation and cost of a $499 Tascam DP 32 SD to the operation and cost to get Cubase Pro up and running. It will become quickly apparent.

Also, I have only anecdotal evidence for the trend towards hardware recorders from the folks that I run into on a daily basis and only in the circles that I run in. I have one or two international circles , I have three or four more or less local circles. But to be sure my circles are not representative of the whole world. But if you surf youtube, and watch the Protools,Ableton Live, Reason, Cubase, FL Studio, Cakewalk, Studio one folks and what they're doing, and then you watch the MPC One, MPC X, MPC, Live, Maschine+, Digitone, Dawless Music Producers, Tascam Model 12, 16,24 crowd, and Zoom 8, 20, 24 crowd and what they're doing, you'll get a pretty good idea of which way the wind is blowing. I'm offering no market studies, only my experience and personal opinion.

And the fact that it is possible to get some really high quality DAWS for free, is motivating vendors to get back into the hardware DAW where they can make some money.

 

[Arjan P]

We're running in circles here. I'd like to propose (again): A DP-32 SD for $499 against a laptop you already own, Cubase Elements for $99 and let's throw in a stereo interface for $149. Perfect and cheap to record, edit, mix, master and put on whichever platform - and $150 saved!

 

[lastmonk]

Nooooo,., LOL can't use a laptop I already own. Because many musicians don't already own laptops, desktops, or notebook computers. And those who do, often own chrome books, or other underpowered computers that would not make for a good music computer. We would have to approach this thing from a musician's/songwriters point view that has to go out and buy everything from scratch. And I know you know, that in the real world whatever computer you use for the music should be dedicated to that purpose. Experience has to have taught you that. So even if some one had a computer that was already up to the task, we couldn't assume that it was just sitting there doing nothing waiting to be drafted into world of recording, mixing, and mastering. So for very practical purposes when introducing a person to both solutions a DAW vs Hardware recorder, you assume the person has to buy everything.

And the minute you throw in the price of the computer.,., its pretty much a bust. And we can't make assumptions about the musician/band leader/choir director that is buying the recording solution. The purchaser may have a small jazz band, or a glee club, or gospel choir, or violin string quartet, or 4 guitar heavy metal prog rock band. Who knows the purchaser may be a drummer with full suite of percussion gear. A stereo interface and cubase elements a'int gonna cut it

I know that DAW does wonders when you're dealing with all virtual instruments Its all so convenient. A nice virtual studio full of virtual instruments But shame on you if you have to record a live piano, saxophone, flute, stand up bass, drummer, vocalist , and percussionist at the same time. Or if you have to record the gospel choir at church, or you're trying to record the battle of the bands at the local summer jazz festival. Believe it or not there are still choirs, glee clubs, jazz bands, quartets, quintets, community orchestras, that would like to record their shows, performances, competitions, etc, etc. and a stereo interface, grandson's chrome book, and cubase elements is wee bit of a stretch. Whereas A tascam dp 24/32 is a lot closer to reality. and for the low price of $499/$399 with low learning curve. C'mon man you gotta see that

My musical circles involve mostly musicians who play real instruments, some analog electronic, some digital, many acoustic, but real instruments. Musicians who want to record their shows, gigs, festival appearances, band audition material, and band material to stream on social media. Whenever I'm asked about what to buy for recording by anyone who I really care about, I truly honestly never recommend a DAW unless that person is or is aspiring to be a recording engineer of some kind.

I do know one or two people who use VST's and DAWs in live performance scenarios for recording. But they are such the exception

 

[BazzBass]

not wishing to go around in circles, but Reaper is about $10 a year, using or buying a ten year old laptop is cheaper than buying a console.
"Because many musicians don't already own laptops, desktops, or notebook computers"...really? name two !

 

[-mjk-]

Show of hands: How many are tired of this kind of discussion? Sorry, I'm going off-rails here, and I'm just going to say what needs to be said:

And, just because you can upload your stuff to all the streaming platforms and create a YouTube channel doesn't mean it's good music. All that's happened is that the gatekeeper has been slain. Now that the record companies are out of the way everyone is uploading everything they do and flooding the market with music created with the same pluging, tools and techniques as everyone else who watched the same YouTube videos about production, does. The top Spotify playlists are very revealing. Never have I seen so much diverse recording technology spawn a generation of music that literally sounds devoid of imagination. The vast majority of it is a repetitive beat with someone whining over it. Pressing the -> button will bring up another track that sounds just like it. That's OK with me as not only it is not my thing, that's not the kind of stuff my fans are into either. All that sameness makes my stuff stand out from the crowd. I'm not saying that none of it is good. I'm saying that there is so much of it that you can't sift through it.

A wise man once said: "The gear doesn't matter - it's what you do with it." What are most people doing? Most people are concentrating on the technical aspects of the process instead of thinking about artistic things like "Does my song have a strong hook? How could I strengthen the impact of the chorus? What other musical devices would make this a better song?" Instead it's "What plugin do I need for a "good sound""? lol

Once, I asked Todd Rundgren about how he sings his songs. He said that he seriously considers what the message is, and how he should emotionally convey that message with his voice. He, like many of us, slave over the delivery. The results are worth that effort. It's not programmed, and it's not cut/paste.

This is why some of those blues recordings from the 30's are so remarkable - not because of the recording technology, but because some guy sitting on a cinderblock with 3 strings on his guitar and a broken bottleneck knows more about selling a song with a soulful, heartfelt delivery than an entire generation of 21st century musicians.

I had the benefit of a mentor who became my publisher when I was 23 years ago. He and I used to discuss musical devices and we'd dissect hit songs and extract the juice from them. Pharrell Williams said that he "reverse engineers" the feel of a song and then writes a new song using musical devices and elements that would re-create that vibe. I used to tell my studio clients: "You can copy anyone you want. You have to decide if you're going to copy Johnny Turd & The Commodes, or Journey."

What we should really be discussing is what makes:

1. A hit record.
2. A song something that you can't stop hearing in your head.
3. A song that brings you back to a certain point in time.
4. A song that inspires you to do your best in everything.
5. A song that can take you from the worse depths of depression back into the sunlight.

 

[-mjk-]

I'd like to point out that @lastmonk said:

Because many musicians don't already own laptops, desktops, or notebook computers. And those who do, often own chrome books, or other underpowered computers that would not make for a good music computer.

And then:

And we can't make assumptions about the musician/band leader/choir director that is buying the recording solution.

@lastmonk you are a very smart person and I know you have something to say. I just can't figure out what it is. Normally I would ask 你能用中文說嗎？But I don' think that will work in this case.

This is not a personal attack by any means, however you do seem extremely opinionated for someone who doesn't make records for a living. While that's ok, it's the hardsell that's difficult to understand. It seems that you are trying to convince people of something but we really aren't sure what that is. Over time you've made similar arguments about SoC (System on a Chip) and recording "Grammy nominated" songs on an iPhone, limited technology, availability of distribution channels, etc.. Respectfully, I feel that many of the discussions are being turned back into the same direction. Perhaps the question should be asked:

What exactly, are you saying?

 

[Mark Richards]

...My musical circles involve mostly...musicians who want to record their shows, gigs, festival appearances, band audition material, and band material to stream on social media. Whenever I'm asked...I truly honestly never recommend a DAW unless that person is or is aspiring to be a recording engineer of some kind...

And there it is...the meat of the discussion after 52 looooonnng, loooooonnnng, posts going nowhere and everywhere.

Here's a real world example of a real band using whatever tools get the job done - in this case, a pair of DP-32SD portastudios, and Protools (and with great results, uploaded to Youtube).

Kevin Kelly, the guitar player:
"There was no mixing, other than getting reasonable input levels on the Tascams . We used two machines because we needed more simultaneously recorded tracks than were available on one machine: eight drum mics, three vocs, one guitar, one DI bass.

The individual tracks were exported [from the DP-32SDs] to Pro Tools. We synched up the tracks from both machines in Pro Tools, where we [used] a fairly standard set of EQ, compression, reverb and delay plugins."

 

[lastmonk]

Go DAW!

Cheers!

 

[-mjk-]

That's more like it. My studio makes money and so I'm going back to doing what I'm doing, however I'm doing it. Opinions are great. Over-zealous discussions are not.

 

[-mjk-]

"Because many musicians don't already own laptops, desktops, or notebook computers"...really? name two !

Musicians? How about naming anyone who doesn't own a computer? I can think of only a couple forum users that exclusively use a mobile device to access the forum. I think your point is well taken - preaching the "no computer" viewpoint on this forum doesn't particularly make sense when that's what most people use to read and comment on the forum.

Also, the choice between hardware and software recording isn't mutually exclusive. I have a DP-32 and I've used my computer many times for utility purposes, such as backups and firmware updates - but I wasn't using the computer for recording in those cases.

How often do we give someone advice about troubleshooting that involves using a computer, only to have that person say "but I don't own a computer"? Sometimes, yes. Not very often though. So, it seems that nearly all of those who are using standalone recorders are doing so because they want to.

 

[BazzBass]

use whatever works for you. There is no right or wrong method, just your method.

I sent a rough demo of my first recording on the 2488 to some friends. They all thought it was the finished product and loved it.
it was just three of the four of us, with a live recording of bass, edrums, guitar and vox. Three of the tracks peaked over 0db, I only added a bit of verb on the vox.
People don't even know what a "great" recording is these days. The era of the audiophile is long gone.
Witness millenials playing $80 vinyl records on a $100 turntable thru a Bluetooth mono speaker or Apple earbuds....