Just FYI, I’ve been using the L6 to record an electric bass for the last couple weeks directly in. I think the need for hiZ inputs might be negated with the 32bit float recording capability. I’ve been having nice results.
Oh my gosh 😂 truth. I got a zoom h1 essential to record my vinyl mixes straight out the analogue mixer, got tired of opening the laptop connecting the sound card opening the software, moving the mouse around to click record aaaah total vibe killer all that setup.
Yeah, so at 0:31 after you had mentioned recording your first band's record, my brain just assumed you had overlayed a track listing of that record. The first "track name" I noticed was "Who Buys Handy", and I lost it. I just wanted to share that. Now back to the video.
I had retired my old Zoom R8 because the inputs had become unusably noisy. However, picked up a tip about using an oil spray to clean them and it worked a trick and brought the device back to life. Have been struggling with Cubase but it’s just so damn complex. Going back to my old device is such a blast.
Yeah, I've used Cubase and several other DAWs. They are great if you can invest the time in getting to learn them. But to me, nothing beats the immediately accessible and "fun" way of recording with these dedicated, stand alone devices.
proper gain staging is needed regardless of 16- vs 24-bit. 24-bit is capable of having a lower noise floor than 16-bit, and is a general indicator of more modern components being used, but isn't a guarantee that the input stages are low enough noise to "set it and forget it" and ignoring the incoming signal levels.
I think it’s a matter of headroom aka clipping. The 16 bit will clip sooner, where as the 24 but has more headroom, where as the 32 bit, you have pretty much zero clipping. The Zoom R’s have 32 bit. I’m no expert, just an educated guess.
@@Mr27Fit more bits only gets you more headroom if the reference level from dbFS drops and the input electronics can handle it. If the noise doesn't drop by the same amount you've dropped the reference level, S/N ratio gets worse. An increase of 16 to 24 bits potentially gets you 48dB of increased range, but I doubt the input stages have 48dB lower noise floor or can actually handle 48dB higher signals. Maybe you can get a few db (a fraction of a bit) or 6dB (a full bit) of headroom on newer equipment? Smells like more marketing hype than reality, but I don't have any of this gear so can't verify the claims. Great overview. I only had a vague sense these types of units even existed, and thought the entire category had mostly vaporized with the proliferation of DAWs.
You definitely need to pick an appropriate volume out of whatever your instrument is along with a comfortable gain setting on your recording device, even with 24-bit. But 24-bit is a little more forgiving for you during the recording phase so that during playback you can use the faders to still give yourself a good chance to get a nice mix. But you are correct…if you’re not careful about your set-up you can get too much noise into your recording pathway that will mess up your final mix no matter what. Most 32-bit devices treat the input and just plug it in and don’t adjust anything. But in post you might have to spend some time normalizing your quiet sounds to be “compatible” with your louder sounds…at least that’s what I’ve been learning recently.
Like any budget device the R20 has it's own limitations, but for some users it's exactly what they need at a reasonable price (especially if you can find it on sale). It's worked as my primary multitracker for the past 3 years and in general, I've been happy with it.
I never realized that the bit depth is something to consider. And lo and behold, my beloved little Zoom R8 can record 24 bit instead of only 16. However, I don't notice much difference in "sensitivity" on the input channel between the 16 and 24 bit setting. Liked your video very much. P.S. A tip: some of the Zoom "hand held" field recorders are "rubberized". It's a layer on the plastic that *will* eventually turn into sticky goo and it is a deal breaker.
Yeah, the 16-bit to 24-bit difference isn't massive or anything, but I do feel like it's important enough for multitrack users because, for the most part, we are not professional sound engineers. Having that extra dynamic range to use makes recording a little more forgiving for all of us and allows us to have a better chance to create a final mix down of a song that will sound good on a variety of speakers or headphones. I didn't think about that rubberized coating on some of the older handy recorders. My H1n is an all-plastic shell. But now that I think about it, I don't find it surprising. I've seen that type of coating on other (non-music) items and it can degrade into that sticky filmy substance over time. Good to know!
Excellent video, I just got a Zoom L-12 to record live concerts and to quickly record ideas at home. Thank you for all the information! Great stuff 👍👍👍
I am an electronic musician. I use a 32 channel Mackie console to mix on. I use the DAW as a recording device to record a single stereo track. So I don't multi track. I basically just record a live set in my studio. I have been eyeing the L6 to use as a recording device to record the output of my console for a truly DAWless setup. I am thinking about getting into busking. Having multiple inputs and a build in battery sounds like just the thing. If it works well enough as an audio interface on Linux, then I can use it send computer audio to my studio monitors. As well as multi tracking in the DAW. Right now Amazon has a deal where you can make interest free monthly payments. So it sounds like it's worth checking out.
The DP24SD was top of the line when it came out over a decade ago. It’s still totally usable and can work really well for people who know the workflow and how to use all the features. Nothing wrong with still keeping that equipment going.
Simple Multitracker is often all what I need and want, but (!) what an absolutly crucial option is - to have midi or sync options. I do not need midi controllers or plugins. Just something like a midi clock, start/stop function. And itˋs a little bit tragic and sad, that they still mostly havenˋt that option closely. Zoom finally just on one of their smallest recording solutions more or less designed for content-producers (why do they need?), with mostly less flexibility for musicans. I did it with a Zoom R24 - an analog click-track, split-cable, working around with panning on headphones- and master-out; pain in the *ss, you want to be flexible in situations of recording. And the most incredible and unbelievible thing is - the almost 30 year old Fostex dmt-8 digital multitrack recorder has this ˋfeature‘! Btw, great video at all - thanks!
Absolutely. The L6 works great for Volcas or compact Airas or pocket operators....it's easy to record on the L-6 and then take all those WAV files to a computer to polish them up. If you need more L-6 specific content, you can start with my First Impressions video that goes through the basics: ua-cam.com/video/RPwnk-2y8vw/v-deo.html
Lots of useful info, delivered in a clear, concise way as always. Thanks. I've been bit underwhelmed with my R20, The Ioss of in-built microphones and battery power means it still gets less use than my R8. I wonder if we'll see larger 32 bit "R" multitracks from Zoom anytime soon.
Thank you. This one was a lot of work to put together. Happy to hear the content makes sense. The R20 has it's highs and lows. I've personally learned to appreciate and lean into the highs as much as I can, and I need more inputs than the two on the R8 for my own specific needs. I don't care if Zoom sticks to 24-bit devices, but I do wish they would truly make a flagship multitrack recorder that is a real successor to the R24 (the R28?). Something that builds off the R20's touchscreen, but offers more CPU horsepower, all combo jacks, and some kind of MIDI clock and sync support.
Great video! If I just like picking my guitar shredding and making music by layering some guitar tracks what would be the best option here? I have a couple shure sm57s, a Marshall tube amp, and a multi effects processor I use for my clean tone. I have the volt 276 and record into my computer sometimes but I absolutely dread having to navigate ableton or protools, just want something simple. I'm also looking into 4track or 8 track cassette recorders, but I feel like it may just be easier to benefit from this piece of more modern tech. I also have a drum kit mic'd with a couple overheads and a kick drum, Id like to possibly record over my guitar track as well. I originally bought the Yamaha mg10XUF mixer to use with my drum kit and possibly guitar but since I'm not in a band and don't play live much I think its unnecessary to have and I would benefit from something more simple like the R12.
Well, I don't like to give a specific model for anyone to buy, simply because I don't know their whole story of what their needs are. That's why I made this general video to at least steer people to the type of recording device category they should be shopping in. All that said, you've tried to use an interface and a computer to record but it sounds like it's not your favorite thing to use. That's how I am too. But man, I can't recommend a 4-track or 8-track cassette recorder, though. Those were obsolete literally 25 years ago and have so many bad limitations. But from what it sounds like you are saying, you'd like to try to build songs on a stand-alone recording device because you'd like to maybe record drums, and then layer some guitar over that in a separate recording step. From that, I think you want to focus you search in the multitracker category. If you go with the R12, that could work for you, but it only has 2 inputs. So if you wanted to record your drums, you'd have to first route the drum mics into your Yamaha mixer, then run mono or stereo cables from that into the R12. It's doable since you already have a mixer. But if you want to skip the mixer, then you'd need to move up to the R20 or the Tascam DP-24 to have enough inputs to handle your recording needs.
I like Tascam products too. I think the X8 is a really good handy recorder. The DP24SD is old, but still works well. It just has an aging interface and a large footprint. I like Zoom’s multi trackers because they are newer and have a little more modern feel. While the touchscreens of the R12 and R20 can be slow, they are still the most intuitive way to trim audio and copy, paste, and move content around. I’m hoping tascam creates a successor to the old DP24SD.
The DP03Sd is a good option, however, there limited against the Zoom R series. The Tascam won’t give you any guitar effects or drum sampling, while the ZOOM R series has an abundant amount of options as far as effects and drum samples, which are authentic as today modern tech goes. The DP03Sd does have a mastering option for final mix down to add compression limiting and those mastering effects. That’s the only advantage I can think of as far as the Zoom vs Tascam. With those options in mind, you’ll be able to choose which is right for you. Best regards
Hi Gaz, I hope all is well! I'm one of those synthesizer guys too, and like you, I started with the Roland VS 890. Unfortunately, my CDR recorder no longer works, and the company that made them went out of business. So, I need a new Digital Multitrack Recorder that can handle everything from recording and arranging to built-in effects (basic, like the VS 890), bouncing (virtual tracks), and mastering. Given that I primarily use synthesizers and drum machines (MPC Live 2, Roland MC 909, JP 8000, MC 09, etc.) and 2 Android apps: Koala Sampler and FL Studio Mobile, what unit would you recommend? Thank you very much for your help. Best regards, R
The L-6 can't really replace the R24. The R24 is a song building machine. You can create songs one instrument at a time, or even one small section at a time and keep building things up. The L-6 only lets you record whatever audio is being fed into the mixer at that time. There is no overdubbing with the L-6, so it really just functions as a mixing board with a no frills multitrack recording function. The MIDI on the L-6 is fine for what it is, but it is rather limited, in my opinion. You can use MIDI CC signals with a MIDI controller to adjust the EQ and Pan settings for the L-6's channels, but you can't use the L-6 to set a master MIDI clock or a click sync.
It's $699, so it's out of the $600 budget line that I established for this video. It can do multitrack recording, but I consider the gigcaster series to be audio interfaces first, and multitrackers second.
Yeah, that's a very legit reason not to buy the R20. I typically use more 1/4" inputs than XLRs, so I've had to use to some work-arounds to make the R20 more useful to me, but it's not the ideal solution. I still think Zoom should have made inputs 1-4 combos and then could have kept 5-8 as XLRs with phantom power for a reasonable compromise.
This is a fantastic video, thanks so much. Over the years, I have spent quite some time looking at this, but my biggest issue has always been the same thing: I need some way of syncing this with midi because my playing is so terrible. Actually, inconsistent is a more accurate description. I can play in time fairly decently, but every now and then I go so far out of time that the recording sounds laughable. Is it possible to allow midi playback so that you get the perfect timing, while syncing the multi-track recorder with a synth? Basically, what I'm asking is, can I record the midi and just have that playback the audio output into the multi-track recorder, instead of me having to play complex pieces live? Obviously this requires some way of syncing the multi-track playback with MIDI, which does not seem to be available on modern multi-track recorders.
Thanks for your videos, I enjoy them, can’t say enough awesome things about the Zoom R20, these units have an abundant amount of options to create the inspiration and desire to write songs on a professional level. This is the best multitrack recorder. Also, could you show some examples of how to copy paste say a verse or chorus into say the 2nd part of the song? Thanks Again, Greg Thanks again
I had the R20 and it was my main mixer until I upgraded to the tascam model 24. My R20 served me well, but the touchscreen is its main feature and its biggest weakness. The feedback was clunky. I decided having the ability to mix dub style became a preference.
The Model 24 is amazing, but it’s a beast! That thing is huge compared to the other devices I covered here. I also didn’t discuss the Model 24 or the L-20 because they didn’t fit under the $600 budget line. But the Model 24 is quite a bit different from the R20. The Model 24 is a real mixing board, and all those physical channel strip controls are nice and more accessible than menu diving through the R20s touchscreen, for sure.
Hey Gaz, your videos have convinced me to give the R12 another try. About a year ago I bought and returned one because it froze on me twice. I had to turn it off and lose my progress. Have you encountered any freezes/crashes with the R12? Maybe I got a dud! Thanks
I have not encountered full freezes. There have been several firmware updates bringing the R12 to v2.4 now, and those included bug fixes. However. The processor in the R12 isn’t speedy by any means. So once you start recording a lot of audio regions within one project, it can slow down when you hit stop after recording something. You can get a spinning “thinking” circle for a few seconds at times. If you build full songs with the R12, you’ll have to be a little patient once you really start to flesh out your song. Definitely doable, but the thing is not a $1,000 computer.
Sample rate section is completely wrong. The sample rate doesn't affect the "fidelity" or "nuance" of the sound at all. It affects one and only one thing: the highest possible frequency that can be stored in the sound, aka, the Nyquist frequency. This is exactly 1/2 the sampling rate. 44.1kHz was originally chosen because it enabled 20kHz frequencies -- the highest we can hear -- plus the needed wiggle room for a brick-wall cutoff filter. (20 + 2.5) * 2 = 44.1. 48KHz is a nice round number and offers a bit more more space for that filter. 96KHz is common in *editing*, not *playback*, because audio effects and manipulation are much more easily done without aliasing by oversampling (doubling the sample rate or more). But anything over 48kHz doesn't provide any useful functionality for storage or playback.
Sorry, I have to disagree. To be fair, what you are describing is factually correct. But to say I'm "completely wrong" is a serious reach. The purpose of that video was simply to help guide prospective shoppers toward an appropriate category of multitrack recording devices. I was giving simplified overviews of bit depth and sample rates to get to a the conclusion that I stated in the video - that in a quiet environment, 24-bit depth is totally fine to work with, and that 44.1kHz and 48kHz sample rates are also fine for budget recording devices. For 99% of the audience, I feel like my simplified explanations were honest and correct and all that was necessary for them to understand basic specs of devices while shopping. Furthermore, the sample rate does affect the fidelity and resolution of capturing the analog sound signal and converting it into a digitally encoded file for playback later. 44.1kHz does indeed mean that that analog sound is sampled 44,100 times per second and 48kHz is sampled 48,000 times per second. That is not "completely wrong." That's what happens. If you sample analog sound signal more often every second, you have the raw data capacity to improve the resolution of that digitally captured sound. Now, past that sample rate there are a lot of things that can go into the recorded sound file and how it's subsequently played back. There was no way I was going to discuss Nyquist frequencies and aliasing in this video because the audience does not care, and for budget recorders like this it barely matters. Not everyone can even perceptively hear and fully appreciate frequencies from 20Hz to 20kHz. Plenty of humans can only hear well in the 50Hz to 15kHz range. Additionally, I personally feel that in these budget ranges of recorders, so much depends on how well the cheap $10 CPUs work, what kind of compression is applied during recording, what kind of DACs are used for playback....and that's before you even get to cords and the headphones the people are using. Beyond that, better recorders can apply deconvolution algorithms to help get past aliasing limits and extrapolate what the analog sound might be between sampling points with reasonable efficiency to potentially improve the resolution of the original analog sound. I don't know how well the the samplers in these budget recorders are working and what kind of limits they have, but I can hear subtle differences, like how the R12 and R20 just do a better job capturing higher frequency sounds than the older R8, even though they both technically sample 44,100 times a second. So yes, your description is correct on paper. I'm not arguing that. But c'mon man...I feel like calling me "completely wrong" for the that section of the video, when considering the context of the video, the main purpose of the video, and the projected audience for the video is a bit...much?
@@GazRendar My apologies if I was a bit harsh. What I meant by "completely wrong" is solely with regard to your description of the impact of different sampling rates. And there I think I was fair. The sampling rate does NOT effect, as you put it, how a sound's "fidelity" or "nuance", nor even, counterintuitively, any notion of "accurate conversion". You should NOT be able to tell the difference with regard to "opera singers or violins" etc. This is mistaken. The sampling rate simply dictates the highest possible frequency that can be stored in the sound, and 44.1KHz, 48KHz, and 96KHz all have frequencies higher than human hearing. Unless the unit has a poor quality ADC, It's not possible to detect any differences in these three sample rates. There are other good reasons to pick a higher sampling rate, but not audio recording quality. I think you may have the mistaken notion that this is increasing the "resolution", in the sense that an image's higher resolution increases its clarity. Your drawings of increasing resoluation as stairsteps (which they are not) may have suggested that as well. But that is not what happens in audio. Assuming the audio is properly bandlimited, they will produce identical outputs. It is counterintuitive but 100% true. I encourange you to check out the famous Xiph.org youtube video on the topic and common misconceptions. ua-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/v-deo.html
@@GazRendar I agree I had an R8 and I sold it, I wish it is still here on my desk. I have also made music on it that seems it attracted attention. I am in the process in deciding which to buy one again. I am looking into the Tascam dp-03sd.
Your understanding of dynamic range is wrong, the difference is not in volume, but in the spaces between steps, maybe you just badly explained it, but it comes across as wrong.
Sorry. I didn't go into hyper specific details about bit rate of dynamic range for the video because...in my personal opinion anyway....it's not overly relevant for someone shopping for a budget recording device. My explanation is indeed simplified. The main take home message I wanted to deliver is that, sure, users can record with 16-bit devices, but it's more challenging to do so. 32-bit offers the most recording flexibility....but, ehhh....if you are in a quiet room, I think 24-bit is perfectly fine and easy to work with. It's why my final y-axis graph of the range of 32-bit vs 24-bit doesn't depict a true exponential difference. So yes, you are correct in that going from 16-bit to 24-bit to 32-bit most definitely increases the number of the digitally encoded steps in volume to provide greater resolution in recorded loudness. However, for most devices, that's only part of the story. Moving from 16-bit to 24-bit does usually give you more loudness "capability," not just more fineness between the steps. And 32-bit gives you even more loudness capability. But...that increased capability to record loudness is not at the equivalent exponential bit rates (2^16 vs 2^24 vs 2^32). Additionally, 32-bit recorders on the market are almost always 32-bit "float" recorders, which is even more complex because the step sizes between the levels of loudness are not consistent from the quietest sounds to the loudest sounds. The size of the steps changes through the dynamic range. Plus, many of those 32-bit float devices have two preamps (high and low gain ones) that drive the input signal to the track or to the master output, which also alters the loudness sensitivity. Going through all that would be a 20 minute video by itself and ehhh...I didn't think it mattered that much for the topic, it was just to point out that 24-bit is probably fine for most of the people watching that video. I apologize for my explanation coming across as incorrect.
![[Eng Sub] ZOOM R12 multi-track recording](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/5sN4RpsQYx0/mqdefault.jpg)
Just FYI, I’ve been using the L6 to record an electric bass for the last couple weeks directly in. I think the need for hiZ inputs might be negated with the 32bit float recording capability. I’ve been having nice results.
Thanks for bringing good quality videos !
Thanks for watching and for the kind feedback!
Oh my gosh 😂 truth. I got a zoom h1 essential to record my vinyl mixes straight out the analogue mixer, got tired of opening the laptop connecting the sound card opening the software, moving the mouse around to click record aaaah total vibe killer all that setup.
Thanks for this video! I enjoy your uploads a lot, they're very useful, especially the multi track recorder videos!
Thank you!
Fantastically useful review
Love the design of the L6, simple and efficient
Thanks! And yes, the L-6’s compact design and simplicity can work really for the right person.
Still using my Zoom R8.. wonderful device
I still use it too. It’s been a workhorse unit for me for over a decade.
Yeah, so at 0:31 after you had mentioned recording your first band's record, my brain just assumed you had overlayed a track listing of that record. The first "track name" I noticed was "Who Buys Handy", and I lost it. I just wanted to share that. Now back to the video.
I had retired my old Zoom R8 because the inputs had become unusably noisy. However, picked up a tip about using an oil spray to clean them and it worked a trick and brought the device back to life. Have been struggling with Cubase but it’s just so damn complex. Going back to my old device is such a blast.
Yeah, I've used Cubase and several other DAWs. They are great if you can invest the time in getting to learn them. But to me, nothing beats the immediately accessible and "fun" way of recording with these dedicated, stand alone devices.
proper gain staging is needed regardless of 16- vs 24-bit. 24-bit is capable of having a lower noise floor than 16-bit, and is a general indicator of more modern components being used, but isn't a guarantee that the input stages are low enough noise to "set it and forget it" and ignoring the incoming signal levels.
I think it’s a matter of headroom aka clipping. The 16 bit will clip sooner, where as the 24 but has more headroom, where as the 32 bit, you have pretty much zero clipping. The Zoom R’s have 32 bit. I’m no expert, just an educated guess.
@@Mr27Fit more bits only gets you more headroom if the reference level from dbFS drops and the input electronics can handle it. If the noise doesn't drop by the same amount you've dropped the reference level, S/N ratio gets worse. An increase of 16 to 24 bits potentially gets you 48dB of increased range, but I doubt the input stages have 48dB lower noise floor or can actually handle 48dB higher signals. Maybe you can get a few db (a fraction of a bit) or 6dB (a full bit) of headroom on newer equipment? Smells like more marketing hype than reality, but I don't have any of this gear so can't verify the claims.
Great overview. I only had a vague sense these types of units even existed, and thought the entire category had mostly vaporized with the proliferation of DAWs.
You definitely need to pick an appropriate volume out of whatever your instrument is along with a comfortable gain setting on your recording device, even with 24-bit. But 24-bit is a little more forgiving for you during the recording phase so that during playback you can use the faders to still give yourself a good chance to get a nice mix. But you are correct…if you’re not careful about your set-up you can get too much noise into your recording pathway that will mess up your final mix no matter what.
Most 32-bit devices treat the input and just plug it in and don’t adjust anything. But in post you might have to spend some time normalizing your quiet sounds to be “compatible” with your louder sounds…at least that’s what I’ve been learning recently.
I’m impressed with the R20. Very clean recording. Easy to understand.
Like any budget device the R20 has it's own limitations, but for some users it's exactly what they need at a reasonable price (especially if you can find it on sale). It's worked as my primary multitracker for the past 3 years and in general, I've been happy with it.
I never realized that the bit depth is something to consider. And lo and behold, my beloved little Zoom R8 can record 24 bit instead of only 16. However, I don't notice much difference in "sensitivity" on the input channel between the 16 and 24 bit setting.
Liked your video very much.
P.S. A tip: some of the Zoom "hand held" field recorders are "rubberized". It's a layer on the plastic that *will* eventually turn into sticky goo and it is a deal breaker.
Yeah, the 16-bit to 24-bit difference isn't massive or anything, but I do feel like it's important enough for multitrack users because, for the most part, we are not professional sound engineers. Having that extra dynamic range to use makes recording a little more forgiving for all of us and allows us to have a better chance to create a final mix down of a song that will sound good on a variety of speakers or headphones.
I didn't think about that rubberized coating on some of the older handy recorders. My H1n is an all-plastic shell. But now that I think about it, I don't find it surprising. I've seen that type of coating on other (non-music) items and it can degrade into that sticky filmy substance over time. Good to know!
Excellent video, I just got a Zoom L-12 to record live concerts and to quickly record ideas at home.
Thank you for all the information! Great stuff 👍👍👍
Thanks! And hope the L-12 works out great for your live shows and home recording!
I am an electronic musician. I use a 32 channel Mackie console to mix on. I use the DAW as a recording device to record a single stereo track. So I don't multi track. I basically just record a live set in my studio. I have been eyeing the L6 to use as a recording device to record the output of my console for a truly DAWless setup. I am thinking about getting into busking. Having multiple inputs and a build in battery sounds like just the thing. If it works well enough as an audio interface on Linux, then I can use it send computer audio to my studio monitors. As well as multi tracking in the DAW.
Right now Amazon has a deal where you can make interest free monthly payments. So it sounds like it's worth checking out.
I use the tascam dp24sd, not perfect but it has helped me tremendously. I hate dealing with computers, this unit has really been important for me.
The DP24SD was top of the line when it came out over a decade ago. It’s still totally usable and can work really well for people who know the workflow and how to use all the features. Nothing wrong with still keeping that equipment going.
Simple Multitracker is often all what I need and want, but (!) what an absolutly crucial option is - to have midi or sync options. I do not need midi controllers or plugins. Just something like a midi clock, start/stop function. And itˋs a little bit tragic and sad, that they still mostly havenˋt that option closely. Zoom finally just on one of their smallest recording solutions more or less designed for content-producers (why do they need?), with mostly less flexibility for musicans.
I did it with a Zoom R24 - an analog click-track, split-cable, working around with panning on headphones- and master-out; pain in the *ss, you want to be flexible in situations of recording.
And the most incredible and unbelievible thing is - the almost 30 year old Fostex dmt-8 digital multitrack recorder has this ˋfeature‘!
Btw, great video at all - thanks!
Great job, thank you! Zoom L6 seems near perfect to record jams on portable synths such as Korg Volcas. Then editing and polishing in a DAW. Cheers!
Absolutely. The L6 works great for Volcas or compact Airas or pocket operators....it's easy to record on the L-6 and then take all those WAV files to a computer to polish them up.
If you need more L-6 specific content, you can start with my First Impressions video that goes through the basics:
ua-cam.com/video/RPwnk-2y8vw/v-deo.html
Lots of useful info, delivered in a clear, concise way as always. Thanks. I've been bit underwhelmed with my R20, The Ioss of in-built microphones and battery power means it still gets less use than my R8. I wonder if we'll see larger 32 bit "R" multitracks from Zoom anytime soon.
Thank you. This one was a lot of work to put together. Happy to hear the content makes sense.
The R20 has it's highs and lows. I've personally learned to appreciate and lean into the highs as much as I can, and I need more inputs than the two on the R8 for my own specific needs.
I don't care if Zoom sticks to 24-bit devices, but I do wish they would truly make a flagship multitrack recorder that is a real successor to the R24 (the R28?). Something that builds off the R20's touchscreen, but offers more CPU horsepower, all combo jacks, and some kind of MIDI clock and sync support.
Great video! If I just like picking my guitar shredding and making music by layering some guitar tracks what would be the best option here? I have a couple shure sm57s, a Marshall tube amp, and a multi effects processor I use for my clean tone. I have the volt 276 and record into my computer sometimes but I absolutely dread having to navigate ableton or protools, just want something simple. I'm also looking into 4track or 8 track cassette recorders, but I feel like it may just be easier to benefit from this piece of more modern tech. I also have a drum kit mic'd with a couple overheads and a kick drum, Id like to possibly record over my guitar track as well. I originally bought the Yamaha mg10XUF mixer to use with my drum kit and possibly guitar but since I'm not in a band and don't play live much I think its unnecessary to have and I would benefit from something more simple like the R12.
Well, I don't like to give a specific model for anyone to buy, simply because I don't know their whole story of what their needs are. That's why I made this general video to at least steer people to the type of recording device category they should be shopping in.
All that said, you've tried to use an interface and a computer to record but it sounds like it's not your favorite thing to use. That's how I am too. But man, I can't recommend a 4-track or 8-track cassette recorder, though. Those were obsolete literally 25 years ago and have so many bad limitations. But from what it sounds like you are saying, you'd like to try to build songs on a stand-alone recording device because you'd like to maybe record drums, and then layer some guitar over that in a separate recording step. From that, I think you want to focus you search in the multitracker category. If you go with the R12, that could work for you, but it only has 2 inputs. So if you wanted to record your drums, you'd have to first route the drum mics into your Yamaha mixer, then run mono or stereo cables from that into the R12. It's doable since you already have a mixer. But if you want to skip the mixer, then you'd need to move up to the R20 or the Tascam DP-24 to have enough inputs to handle your recording needs.
@@GazRendarOk cool, thanks for taking the time to give a thoughtful reply, much appreciated.
Good video. Are there any particular reasons you prefer Zoom over Tascam?
I like Tascam products too. I think the X8 is a really good handy recorder. The DP24SD is old, but still works well. It just has an aging interface and a large footprint. I like Zoom’s multi trackers because they are newer and have a little more modern feel. While the touchscreens of the R12 and R20 can be slow, they are still the most intuitive way to trim audio and copy, paste, and move content around. I’m hoping tascam creates a successor to the old DP24SD.
The DP03Sd is a good option, however, there limited against the Zoom R series. The Tascam won’t give you any guitar effects or drum sampling, while the ZOOM R series has an abundant amount of options as far as effects and drum samples, which are authentic as today modern tech goes.
The DP03Sd does have a mastering option for final mix down to add compression limiting and those mastering effects. That’s the only advantage I can think of as far as the Zoom vs Tascam.
With those options in mind, you’ll be able to choose which is right for you.
Best regards
Hi Gaz,
I hope all is well!
I'm one of those synthesizer guys too, and like you, I started with the Roland VS 890. Unfortunately, my CDR recorder no longer works, and the company that made them went out of business. So, I need a new Digital Multitrack Recorder that can handle everything from recording and arranging to built-in effects (basic, like the VS 890), bouncing (virtual tracks), and mastering.
Given that I primarily use synthesizers and drum machines (MPC Live 2, Roland MC 909, JP 8000, MC 09, etc.) and 2 Android apps: Koala Sampler and FL Studio Mobile, what unit would you recommend?
Thank you very much for your help.
Best regards,
R
The L6 is the only one that has MIDI, it replaced a ZOOM R24.
The L-6 can't really replace the R24. The R24 is a song building machine. You can create songs one instrument at a time, or even one small section at a time and keep building things up. The L-6 only lets you record whatever audio is being fed into the mixer at that time. There is no overdubbing with the L-6, so it really just functions as a mixing board with a no frills multitrack recording function.
The MIDI on the L-6 is fine for what it is, but it is rather limited, in my opinion. You can use MIDI CC signals with a MIDI controller to adjust the EQ and Pan settings for the L-6's channels, but you can't use the L-6 to set a master MIDI clock or a click sync.
What about the Gigcaster 8?
It's $699, so it's out of the $600 budget line that I established for this video. It can do multitrack recording, but I consider the gigcaster series to be audio interfaces first, and multitrackers second.
didnt buy r20 cause zoom cheaped out on combo xlt/trs. i seldomly need more then 2xlr, i ALWAYS need more then 2 jacks.
Yeah, that's a very legit reason not to buy the R20. I typically use more 1/4" inputs than XLRs, so I've had to use to some work-arounds to make the R20 more useful to me, but it's not the ideal solution. I still think Zoom should have made inputs 1-4 combos and then could have kept 5-8 as XLRs with phantom power for a reasonable compromise.
This is a fantastic video, thanks so much. Over the years, I have spent quite some time looking at this, but my biggest issue has always been the same thing: I need some way of syncing this with midi because my playing is so terrible. Actually, inconsistent is a more accurate description. I can play in time fairly decently, but every now and then I go so far out of time that the recording sounds laughable.
Is it possible to allow midi playback so that you get the perfect timing, while syncing the multi-track recorder with a synth?
Basically, what I'm asking is, can I record the midi and just have that playback the audio output into the multi-track recorder, instead of me having to play complex pieces live? Obviously this requires some way of syncing the multi-track playback with MIDI, which does not seem to be available on modern multi-track recorders.
Thanks for your videos, I enjoy them, can’t say enough awesome things about the Zoom R20, these units have an abundant amount of options to create the inspiration and desire to write songs on a professional level. This is the best multitrack recorder.
Also, could you show some examples of how to copy paste say a verse or chorus into say the 2nd part of the
song? Thanks Again, Greg
Thanks again
I had the R20 and it was my main mixer until I upgraded to the tascam model 24. My R20 served me well, but the touchscreen is its main feature and its biggest weakness. The feedback was clunky. I decided having the ability to mix dub style became a preference.
The Model 24 is amazing, but it’s a beast! That thing is huge compared to the other devices I covered here. I also didn’t discuss the Model 24 or the L-20 because they didn’t fit under the $600 budget line. But the Model 24 is quite a bit different from the R20. The Model 24 is a real mixing board, and all those physical channel strip controls are nice and more accessible than menu diving through the R20s touchscreen, for sure.
I use the Zoom R24, meets all my needs!
Hey Gaz, your videos have convinced me to give the R12 another try. About a year ago I bought and returned one because it froze on me twice. I had to turn it off and lose my progress. Have you encountered any freezes/crashes with the R12? Maybe I got a dud! Thanks
I have not encountered full freezes. There have been several firmware updates bringing the R12 to v2.4 now, and those included bug fixes. However. The processor in the R12 isn’t speedy by any means. So once you start recording a lot of audio regions within one project, it can slow down when you hit stop after recording something. You can get a spinning “thinking” circle for a few seconds at times. If you build full songs with the R12, you’ll have to be a little patient once you really start to flesh out your song. Definitely doable, but the thing is not a $1,000 computer.
@@GazRendar Ah yeah, I understand. You get a lot for the money though. I think I'll give it another try. Thanks for your reply!
I have boss br 800, it is one of the best.
It's a classic. And it comes with BOSS effects too, which is a nice bonus.
Sample rate section is completely wrong. The sample rate doesn't affect the "fidelity" or "nuance" of the sound at all. It affects one and only one thing: the highest possible frequency that can be stored in the sound, aka, the Nyquist frequency. This is exactly 1/2 the sampling rate. 44.1kHz was originally chosen because it enabled 20kHz frequencies -- the highest we can hear -- plus the needed wiggle room for a brick-wall cutoff filter. (20 + 2.5) * 2 = 44.1. 48KHz is a nice round number and offers a bit more more space for that filter. 96KHz is common in *editing*, not *playback*, because audio effects and manipulation are much more easily done without aliasing by oversampling (doubling the sample rate or more). But anything over 48kHz doesn't provide any useful functionality for storage or playback.
Sorry, I have to disagree.
To be fair, what you are describing is factually correct. But to say I'm "completely wrong" is a serious reach. The purpose of that video was simply to help guide prospective shoppers toward an appropriate category of multitrack recording devices. I was giving simplified overviews of bit depth and sample rates to get to a the conclusion that I stated in the video - that in a quiet environment, 24-bit depth is totally fine to work with, and that 44.1kHz and 48kHz sample rates are also fine for budget recording devices. For 99% of the audience, I feel like my simplified explanations were honest and correct and all that was necessary for them to understand basic specs of devices while shopping.
Furthermore, the sample rate does affect the fidelity and resolution of capturing the analog sound signal and converting it into a digitally encoded file for playback later. 44.1kHz does indeed mean that that analog sound is sampled 44,100 times per second and 48kHz is sampled 48,000 times per second. That is not "completely wrong." That's what happens. If you sample analog sound signal more often every second, you have the raw data capacity to improve the resolution of that digitally captured sound. Now, past that sample rate there are a lot of things that can go into the recorded sound file and how it's subsequently played back. There was no way I was going to discuss Nyquist frequencies and aliasing in this video because the audience does not care, and for budget recorders like this it barely matters. Not everyone can even perceptively hear and fully appreciate frequencies from 20Hz to 20kHz. Plenty of humans can only hear well in the 50Hz to 15kHz range. Additionally, I personally feel that in these budget ranges of recorders, so much depends on how well the cheap $10 CPUs work, what kind of compression is applied during recording, what kind of DACs are used for playback....and that's before you even get to cords and the headphones the people are using. Beyond that, better recorders can apply deconvolution algorithms to help get past aliasing limits and extrapolate what the analog sound might be between sampling points with reasonable efficiency to potentially improve the resolution of the original analog sound. I don't know how well the the samplers in these budget recorders are working and what kind of limits they have, but I can hear subtle differences, like how the R12 and R20 just do a better job capturing higher frequency sounds than the older R8, even though they both technically sample 44,100 times a second.
So yes, your description is correct on paper. I'm not arguing that. But c'mon man...I feel like calling me "completely wrong" for the that section of the video, when considering the context of the video, the main purpose of the video, and the projected audience for the video is a bit...much?
@@GazRendar My apologies if I was a bit harsh. What I meant by "completely wrong" is solely with regard to your description of the impact of different sampling rates. And there I think I was fair. The sampling rate does NOT effect, as you put it, how a sound's "fidelity" or "nuance", nor even, counterintuitively, any notion of "accurate conversion". You should NOT be able to tell the difference with regard to "opera singers or violins" etc. This is mistaken. The sampling rate simply dictates the highest possible frequency that can be stored in the sound, and 44.1KHz, 48KHz, and 96KHz all have frequencies higher than human hearing. Unless the unit has a poor quality ADC, It's not possible to detect any differences in these three sample rates. There are other good reasons to pick a higher sampling rate, but not audio recording quality. I think you may have the mistaken notion that this is increasing the "resolution", in the sense that an image's higher resolution increases its clarity. Your drawings of increasing resoluation as stairsteps (which they are not) may have suggested that as well. But that is not what happens in audio. Assuming the audio is properly bandlimited, they will produce identical outputs. It is counterintuitive but 100% true. I encourange you to check out the famous Xiph.org youtube video on the topic and common misconceptions. ua-cam.com/video/cIQ9IXSUzuM/v-deo.html
The Tascam SD24 is the only decent one amongst them for the price.
They still make those things? lol
They do! And despite there being many different DAWs out there, these multi trackers can still be fun to use to the right musician…
@@GazRendar I agree I had an R8 and I sold it, I wish it is still here on my desk. I have also made music on it that seems it attracted attention. I am in the process in deciding which to buy one again. I am looking into the Tascam dp-03sd.
Your understanding of dynamic range is wrong, the difference is not in volume, but in the spaces between steps, maybe you just badly explained it, but it comes across as wrong.
Sorry. I didn't go into hyper specific details about bit rate of dynamic range for the video because...in my personal opinion anyway....it's not overly relevant for someone shopping for a budget recording device. My explanation is indeed simplified. The main take home message I wanted to deliver is that, sure, users can record with 16-bit devices, but it's more challenging to do so. 32-bit offers the most recording flexibility....but, ehhh....if you are in a quiet room, I think 24-bit is perfectly fine and easy to work with. It's why my final y-axis graph of the range of 32-bit vs 24-bit doesn't depict a true exponential difference.
So yes, you are correct in that going from 16-bit to 24-bit to 32-bit most definitely increases the number of the digitally encoded steps in volume to provide greater resolution in recorded loudness. However, for most devices, that's only part of the story. Moving from 16-bit to 24-bit does usually give you more loudness "capability," not just more fineness between the steps. And 32-bit gives you even more loudness capability. But...that increased capability to record loudness is not at the equivalent exponential bit rates (2^16 vs 2^24 vs 2^32). Additionally, 32-bit recorders on the market are almost always 32-bit "float" recorders, which is even more complex because the step sizes between the levels of loudness are not consistent from the quietest sounds to the loudest sounds. The size of the steps changes through the dynamic range. Plus, many of those 32-bit float devices have two preamps (high and low gain ones) that drive the input signal to the track or to the master output, which also alters the loudness sensitivity. Going through all that would be a 20 minute video by itself and ehhh...I didn't think it mattered that much for the topic, it was just to point out that 24-bit is probably fine for most of the people watching that video. I apologize for my explanation coming across as incorrect.