Recording - Hardware Versus Software Based DAW

[Jim Fogle]

DAW stands for Digital Audio Workstation. A DAW has tools you can use to record, edit and mix audio. DAWs can be dedicated hardware or a computer program with an audio interface.

Do you use one or the other or both? What do you see as the benefits and deficiencies of one over the other?

[Ken Morgan]

Really good results can be found with DAW only work. IMO the only advantages in hardware are seen when:

Hardware is significantly better for the desired sound
Latency offsets for the time it takes to go back out then back in are compensated for during mixdown
Tracking with hardware is really beneficial if you KNOW what the track should sound like

FWIW I used to have a 32 channel British console, 24 tracks and some stereo effects returns. Sounded wonderful. Now it’s just a couple external pres and a pretty good interface, and results are very close to analog sounding.

I never had much luck with digital boards if that matters

[Walter Killam]

I use a Zoom R16 to capture tracks, and then transfer to my PC for DAW editing (currently running Ubuntu 22.04 with Ardour DAW).

I find this solves most problems with interfacing mics and instruments with the PC.

Ardour has been a steep learning curve, but I don't think it's that much harder than other DAWs, and since it's open source, it's free!

[Jim Fogle]

Really good results can be found with DAW only work. IMO the only advantages in hardware are seen when:

Hardware is significantly better for the desired sound
Latency offsets for the time it takes to go back out then back in are compensated for during mixdown
Tracking with hardware is really beneficial if you KNOW what the track should sound like

FWIW I used to have a 32 channel British console, 24 tracks and some stereo effects returns. Sounded wonderful. Now it’s just a couple external pres and a pretty good interface, and results are very close to analog sounding.

I never had much luck with digital boards if that matters

Ken, I suspect you are only using the term DAW in reference to software programs on a computer. As Walter mentions, there are also hardware DAWs. Two prominent manufacturers that currently make hardware DAWs include TASCAM and Zoom. Hardware DAWs offer the audio interface, recording and playback capability, plug-ins and track editing in an all-in-one package. The TASCAM DP-24 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... ortastudio and Zoom R-8 https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail ... ce-sampler are two examples.

One huge benefit to using a hardware DAW is up time. I can power up, plug-in and start recording faster than the time it takes to power up a computer, audio interface, load a program and press record. My vintage 2007 Zoom MRS-8 has NEVER crashed and received one firmware update during that time.

[Tony Prior]

For me its PC based Pro Tools 12 with a varied group of preamps. I am limited to 4 inputs . I do own a Zoom R16 which is a fine standalone unit. The only reason I would use it would be to track drums or a LIVE scenario should I require more than 4 inputs. My typical required input count is 1 or 2.

And Yes , DAW is Digital Audio Workstation, which can be something as simple as a stereo ( 2 track) digital handheld recorder or a massive PC based system with 256 available tracks !


I guess we can argue the merits of which is better, but certainly for me, boot up time is not any issue. Calling up a session on a 28" monitor , seeing it all at the same time in real time, and then having the MIX window for all tracks in view is a nice benefit over a small LED display window ! Well, at least for me !

[Jack Stoner]

After 17 years with computer based recording I can't imagine going back to a hardware recording device.
I started with Sonar and its done everything I needed (Sonar is now the free Cakewalk by Bandlab).
I tried the pricey ProTools and Presonus Studio One but they don't do anything that Sonar/Cakewalk doesn't do.


I had a good side hustle with my home studio. It was closed last year along with my playing retirement.

[Jim Fogle]

Some of the benefits I recognize for hardware based DAWs are: stability, learning curve, cost, portability and an all-in-one configuration.

Software DAWs have the advantage of continuing development, the capability to use loops and plug-ins as well as use of the computer keyboard, screen and processing power.

The major limitation to hardware DAWs in my estimation is that the hardware configuration and features are frozen. You are really locked in to the manufacturer's vision of what they think you want to do.

The major limitation of most software DAWs in my estimation is system maintenance. You need to be conversant not just with the DAW but also with the computer operating system. Both DAW programs and computer operating systems receive frequent updates which can create havoc but normally doesn't.

[Tony Prior]

Both DAW programs and computer operating systems receive frequent updates which can create havoc but normally doesn't.

Not so much the DAW because we have to log in to our product account page and request the updates as a download. The operating system - yep- thats why many have the internet disabled and updates OFF. Users who share a PC based DAW on a Laptop or Desktop with other programs can easily fall victim to unwanted updates and operating system changes which can cause DAW issues.

[Jack Stoner]

I must be lucky if OS updates cause DAW problems, as I never had an update that caused a DAW related issue. But I am a computer "techy"
I even joined the Windows insider program, which provides advance versions of Windows to see if new versions would affect Recording software or recording interface devices and none did. I'm active on several computer forums (including Dell) and see user problems and many are "self inflicted".

[Ken Morgan]

Well, I messed that up…thanks

Never had acceptable results with an all in on unit, although many others have. The reasons already given, plus the frustrating tiny screen made it difficult at best.

I will say that combination the two technologies, although expensive, has yield what I thought were nothing short of amazing. The IZ Corp Radar is arguably the best sounding and easiest hardware recorder out there, but costs a fortune. They are available with ProTools integrated in the system if you wish, connections for large screens, CD burning, etc.

And near zero latency, all the time.

Again sorry for misunderstanding the question

[Jim Fogle]

Hey Ken,

Don't worry about it, maybe I should have been more clear describing my intent for starting the thread.

I had a Teac A-3340 4 track tape deck with simul-sync recording capability back in the mid seventies. Between the front and rear connections it could handle eight inputs at the same time. But I have little talent, no recording or live sound buddies and no outboard production gear. In one respect it was money wasted as I never utilized the recorder to it's full potential. One the other hand it allowed me to discover I didn't care as much about being a recording engineer as much as I enjoyed learning about audio production. Varying sounds by changing tape speeds, creating delays using cabling between outputs and inputs, using a speaker cone as a bass drum, creating sound effects I found exciting so the tape deck still served a purpose.

But I had no experience with signal chains with tools like equalizers and compressors so I didn't understand how to mold sound or use other pieces of audio equipment. To me, that is one area where a hardware DAW can really benefit a beginner.

My Zoom MRS-8 digital recorder has four stereo playback tracks, four mono playback tracks and one stereo mastering track. It has a built-in microphone, two inputs for external hardware, a bass machine and a drum machine. It has hundreds of factory effect chains and each effect chain can be customized. I can record up to ten takes for each playback track.

As mentioned by others, the LCD display is tiny but I can transfer all the tracks to a computer if I want the big display.

Software DAWs are more versatile but I believe hardware DAWs allow beginners to achieve good results from the start.

[Rick Campbell]

Those hardware recording systems are really good. I started with a Tascam four track cassette in the early 80's. I used Roland units for years. I've been using computer DAW for the past dozen years or so. I started when Presonus Studio One came out. The both do a good job. The good thing about the all in one digital recording machines is that they are designed to do what they do, and not other things. So, you don't have compatibility problems,and latency is usually not an issue. The computer based DAWs are more versatile and editing is so much easier, but with the hardware machines, I never found as much need to edit anyway. The amount of onboard effects with the hardware recorders is usually fixed, but the modern machines have everything you would need for a home studio. The computer DAWs have tons and tons of plugin effects and tools..... but, that can be a negative thing.... I have to discipline myself or I end up spending more time learning new plugins than I do making music. Theres no magic Reverbs, EQs, etc... their ads make them sound like it's something you just can't live without, something that will replace all the others you've tried, but I find that's usually not the case, and I go back to the ones I'm familiar with.

I think there's a place for both.

RC

[Tony Prior]

I think there's a place for both.

RC

A tad long but maybe a good read LOL

Yep fully agree. A discussion of which is better , or which is easier to use etc.. is kinda irrelevant.

There really is only ONE question- What exactly am I trying or wanting to do, what is my goal ? "Whats best for me" ?

We read often- "I don't need all those Bells and Whistles" - which of course are features and not needless additions , then of course a simple 4 or 8 track workstation is going to be "your new best friend". An amazing amount of music a can be produced on a simple workstation, and it will sound great ( if recorded properly)


Then we have "the PC issue is not for me" And if we are not PC literate then stay away from a PC based DAW. IF the PC ain't up to snuff, or maintained, the DAW will be hanging on for dear life. But in those cases, we usually blame the DAW software.


Software is a funny thing, ALL SOFTWARE . I've been using MS products, Word, Excel and Power Point for years, my in depth knowledge of each of those packages is probably somewhere between 25 and 50%. I've never needed to get into the weeds. And I'll bet thats the same for most of us here. BUT when we talk about a PC Based DAW, everyone runs for cover, " Oh MY God look at all of the stuff I have to learn "

Nope, same thing applies, once the software is loaded and operating, just like ANY PC based software package, we learn and use what it is we need to be productive. WE DON'T LEARN EVERY FEATURE AND OPERATION.

I started my recording life at about age 10 with a Pentron 7" reel to reel, recording with a mic in front of the AM radio. It probably took a dozen attempts before I actually got a clean recording instead of a totally distorted recording. That simple process/principle is still the #1 thing we need to learn be it a workstation or PC based DAW. If its distorted, it ain't the workstation or the DAW.


My recording tenure had me with multiple Recorders , Tape Decks, Workstations etc over the years, the process and principle is exactly the same. CLEAN SIGNAL.

I started using DAW software in the mid 90's, it was Cakewalk on floppy disks. I had it synced to a Teac 80-8 at the time. Then in early 2000's I moved to Cubase, then to Sonar, then , in 2009, Musicians Friend had Pro Tools 8 , full version with perpetual License , for $150. That was it for me. Sonar is a good package and I found that my experience with it made Pro Tools pretty simple. The one thing that Pro Tools had and still does, is the editing feature. Its the software feature that to me made perfect sense, still does. Sometimes we "CLICK" with software, sometimes we don't. In this case, I clicked.

I ran PT 8 on XP ( max 4 gig ram) right up to 2015. Thats when I moved to Pro Tools 12 on WIN 7 with I believe 10 or 12 gig or ram and an SD drive for the OP system and PT software. I built the WIN 7 PC specifically for PT 12. That system is still running today, same PC, same PT 12. No other programs for daily use and no active internet connection, and UPDATES OFF. I can go to may AVID account and grab some PT12 updates but after reading what they do, I didn't bother. One thing I have done for many years now is record sessions to an external drive. By the way, the PT 8 on XP, while retired, is still functional .

The only workstation I now have is a Zoom R16 which I haven't used in a very long time, but its a valuable tool for me to keep around, cause ya never know .


I've run sessions for me, my wife, my band, friends etc, and I still do E Sessions now and then, all on the PT 12 system.

So the argument is not which is better , Workstation or PC Based DAW, the question is which is better for YOU and which one best fits your life !

My system has a 28" Monitor, I'm not returning to a small LED window anytime soon !