The DijonStock Digital Home Recording Support Forum

I am a novice in multi-track recording and wanted to ask for advice on these 2 machines that I am searching for: AW4416 and AW2400.

Personally I would prefer to work with a AW2400, since it connects Via USB to a computer (to share songs online), is a faster machine to work with, and seems to have cleaner and simpler menu pages.
I am aware of the limitation of 12 tracks in 24 bit mode, of the AW2400. Since I will work on electronic music (synths, drum machines), I will use probably more than 12 tracks.
I can chose to record instead in (16 bit)... 24 tracks - more than enough.

My question is this:
Bearing in mind the improvement of the AW2400 preamps - comparing to those on the 4416 -, do you think that if I choose to record in (16 bit) on the AW2400, the final result will have inferior sound quality, comparing to recording on the AW4416 in (24 bit) mode ?

Hi.
This is the best place for advice regarding these machine.
AW4416 has no usb whereas the 1600 and 2400 do.
It would actually take some very very good ears to tell the difference between 16bit and 24bit, personally I can`t.
You are correct in saying 24bit halves the amount of tracks, but you can mixdown to a pair of tracks to free up the remaining tracks.
As for your last question, I doubt if you would be able to tell the difference between the pre-amps on the machines, but having said that I have never used the pre-amps ever, as I have always used external hardware, so maybe someone else will chip in and give you the info your after.
One final thing, the more care you take in recording your equipment regarding eq (try to get as close to the sound your after before you record, the less you have to eq afterwards the better ) and levels, many forget these are digital desks not analogue, and below is a really good read and guide to gain structure and recording levels.
Good luck.

http://www.independentrecording.net/irn ... /index.htm

_________________
https://tmacmusic12.wixsite.com/tmac1

https://tmacmusic12.wixsite.com/tmac

http://www.soundcloud.com/t-mac-12

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmCjAzN ... ture=watch

https://www.reverbnation.com/tmac

I don't see a lot of difference between pre amps on the 1600 and the 2400, although part of the hype around the launch of the 2400, years ago gave a suggestion of improved pre amps. The pres on the 4416 come from the same camp, so i would agree with Mac that you are not going to see much difference.

As for skipping the pre amps on the AW machines, that is not entirely possible, the way I understand. If you are tracking on a G or 1600, the signal path always goes throught AW pre. With it turned right down (full CCW), the signal still passes through. If you put a another (better) pre between the mic and the AW input that works well. The Aw pre can then be used to add a bit of gain, should your external pre not be able to boost the signal enough without cranking it right up. This works well and many users do this.

If you want to bypass the pres entirely, that can be done on a 2400 on inputs 1 and 2, by using the insert jacks. Patch by putting your pre's output cable (TS) into the AW's insert (TRS - Tip Ring Sleeve) jack, to the first click. So you just utilize the return of the insert point. The return is after the AW's pre, so this skirts the onboard pre.

The 4416 probably has insert jacks on some (all?? channels), but i am unfamiliar with the machine so can't say for sure.

_________________
Byron

Yes I believe that`s right, maybe I should say never used the pres for their gain mainly because I always find that using my external pre gives me more scope as far as ins and outs and sidechaining etc.

T.

_________________
https://tmacmusic12.wixsite.com/tmac1

https://tmacmusic12.wixsite.com/tmac

http://www.soundcloud.com/t-mac-12

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmCjAzN ... ture=watch

https://www.reverbnation.com/tmac

Hi,
I owned the AW 1600 and now the AW 2400. To me there is no difference between the preamps. And no, they are really not bad!
Andreas

_________________
Blues aint nothing but the blues!

While the AW4416 was a ground breaking piece of gear, it is relatively old and antiquated by today's standards. Even the AW2400 is now obsolete and absent from the Yamaha line up. There will be those who will swear until their last breath that 24 bit is the way to go regardless that Sgt Pepper was recorded on a 4 track. Imagine that an old tape 4 track recorder got that great of a sound and in 67 mind you. So yes 24 bit till they die! Now lets get back to reality shall we? Is this for making million dollar albums? Is this a fun hobby? Which ever way you go, I don't think you can go wrong.

I have the AW2400. I never record in 24 bit. I enjoy the luxury of of having 24 tracks at my disposal and 4 very nice effects banks in addition to the other toys. My ears can not tell the difference between 16 bit and 24 bit. "But ohhhhhhh what about headroom??" Yes what about it. Don't record so hot and leave some room up at the top where the air is thin. That's why so many recording enthusiasts recommend recording somewhere between -6 and 0. It leaves a little up there and doesn't put everything in the red.

My vote is for the AW2400 using 24 tracks in beautiful 16 bit. If you really need a lot of tracks in 24 bit then consider going this way.

_________________
GSMUSIC: Hey RZ, Im not no upper class american, the gear I own is what I have special to me. My car sucks, my house sucks, my nieghborhood sucks. Does yours RZ? Does it?

rz-land

the aw4416 only has insert jacks on channels 1 + 2 ....