The Portastudio Rap

[lastmonk]

Its 2023, I gotta song to create
I went to the DAW but couldn't catch a break
I was given 55 plugins for every single task
But which one should I use? Was that to much to ask?
So many menus and options what should I choose?
I wanted to write a rap song, but this is givin me the blues
After finally picking a compressor and bout to have a conniption
I got a pop up window that read it was time to pay the daw subscription.

Nuff is a Nuff I gotta go Pro!
Then my girl whispered in my ear: "Get a Portastudio!"
No messin around it just gets to the point
You'll get that $h#t done fast in time to smoke a joint
24 to 32 to tracks with all the tools to master
I walked a way from the daw like it was a natural disaster
The recording capabilities of the portastudio made perfect sense
In no time I was makin a dollar outta 15 cents.
One compressor, one reverb that's all I need
No time to mess around I got mouths to feed

The DP Portastudio, Its got a high color screen
the buttons are dope, it makes me feel like a fiend
Hundreds of virtual tracks its like I'm in a dream
The faders are smooth, did Tascam use cream
Fader groups, rehearsal button, in my eye put a gleam
That's it for me I'm on the Portastudio team

My dude was tired of dongles, locks, and updates galore
He said I feel I've pimped and treated like a common whore
With tears runnin, he said my rent is due and I'm near eviction
But some I how I gotta come up with money to pay my Daw subscription
He said Monk what can I do and where can I go.

I whispered in his ear, get a Portastudio.

 

[shredd]

Freekin' love it. Sez it all!

In case you need MORE reason to prefer a P'Studio. This could be done with an even larger iPad if you wanted/needed to...

 

[lastmonk]

Oh I love that idea., I have a couple of Ipads sitting around. Never thought to use them in that way. Thanx shredd! This is going to save the day for me in a lot of ways. It will also allow me to stream some things about the DPs. Wow thanx

You know it should be common sense on Tascam's part to add HDMI out to the DP 24/32 line. The screen size is really the largest(and sometimes only) reason some potential buyers pass it up.

The HDMI out would also help when we have multiple people in our project studios who all need to see what's on the screen for one reason or another. In addition to that when streaming tutorials on Youtube, Twitch or whatever, having a HDMI makes it much nicer to do screen captures, or stream the screen of the unit. In a music class room situation being able to send the video image to a large screen helps out the instructor. And it is a simple matter of accessibility for anyone of any age that has eye sight challenges, or who wear glasses or whatever.

Tascam has to realize that many customers will never ever bow to the Daw, and they are missing thousands and thousand of sales by not having an HDMI out on the back of their DP 24/32. I think most customers would be willing to spend the extra $50 per unit If they can't add the hardware, they could do an IPad app remote app for it.

If Tascam can't do the HDMI out, there are ways to send the video signal over USB, that's also an option to if Tascam really wants to get behind the Portastudios.

On the other hand, if they add the portastudio software to the Tascam Sonicview

https://tascam.com/us/product/sonicview_24xp/top

I will definitely be going to the pool hall to earn some extra money

 

[shredd]

You know it should be common sense on Tascam's part to add HDMI out to the DP 24/32 line

I could not possibly agree more.

I was a 2488 devotee for a loooong time…and there was that guy in the UK who built a little IC board (called the HGR2488) that you inserted into the video feed for the little onboard monochrome LCD that allowed you to output the vid signal - in full color - to a computer monitor. How I never talked myself into getting one is a mystery. Perhaps it’s cuz I was young & could still see.

Now I’m old n blind & have an O/G DP-32, which has no such options. That’s why I came up with my iPad-hack. But I would’ve GLADLY paid an extra $50-100 bux for HDMI-out. And I agree w @lastmonk: Tascam adding that output should’ve been a no-brainer - even if it were an ‘option’/add-on - would surely attract a bigger fanbase, certainly among us “never-daw” types!

 

[lastmonk]

Hopefully, Tascam is not being paid by the DAW vendors to leave HDMI/Video over USB out

Hopefully, they were just trying keep costs down and make the units affordable.

But its been a decade more or less since the Tascam DP/24 was released and video technology has changed, and wireless technology has changed, and is now fairly cheap.

There are several options for getting a larger display that Tascam could invoke.

• Add a HDMI out on the unit
• Use USB 3.0 (which supports Video over USB)
• Add wireless (so DP 24/32 screen could be connected to a tablet or computer)
• Provide a remote App

Any of those would get us to a larger screen when necessary.

https://www.mouser.com/applications/broadcast-usb-video/
https://apps.apple.com/ro/app/tascam-sonicview-control/id1601911419

It is an accessibility and user interface issue for Tascam. I think an update to the DP line will most certainly include some way to get the DP to a larger screen, and a touch (tablet) surface.

https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/digital-mixer-multi-track-recorders/multi-track-recorders/r20/ All the major manufacturers are moving in that direction.

Its probably only a matter of time. But your solution, is a nice stop gap

 

[shredd]

I'm on board, @lastmonk !
I suspect that it was - 100% - a cost-saving measure. The MTR field is less crowded these days, but at one time a good 1/2-dozen+ brands were battling it out to provide the most functionality/features at the most competitive price...a battle that does NOT lend itself to integrating/including features that aren't deemed utterly vital or are a competitive edge.

That said - I'll repeat myself: I'd have GLADLY paid US$50-100 more for large-screen capability, by ANY of those means you mentioned. I'm hopeful that they still might!
I freekin' LOVE this one: https://apps.apple.com/ro/app/tascam-sonicview-control/id1601911419

And I actually considered a ZOOM R20, because of their going into this area. If the R20 were at least a 16-track (or even 24) and a bigger screen/output capability...I surely would've bit.

 

[Arjan P]

I don't know what their thinking is, really. I mean, I have the DM-3200 mixer that came out in what? 2008/2009? It even had 96k digital mixing already, obviously for all channels, and the DM-4800 was like that too.

So why put in a cheap display that has failed over time on most if not all users - and not include a video output? I mean, just VGA would have been great! Well, got that now anyway, from a small company that developed it, but it really should have been there from the get-go..

 

[lastmonk]

Well, Tascam, Fostex, Roland, Korg, Akai, Sony and a few others had beautiful all in one hardware digital recording studio workstations and @shredd you're right they were battling it out and we the customer were benefiting.

But if you want to know a little more about why we're where we're at today. Its not hard to piece together.

Cubase, Protools, Digital Performer, were all happening in the late 80's and 90's. So the software DAW was around when the hardware DAWs were around. But the hardware DAWs ran between $1000 - $4500, and the software based DAWs didn't cost so much. But, in the 90's and late 80's Windows crashed early and often, Windows for Workgroups what Shi#t, Windows 95/98 were simply not reliable enough for serious music production, so lots of people stayed away. And Mac was still on Mac OS9 (written in Pascal)

Also in the late 90's , early 2000's the storage media battle was on, 3/ 1/2 disks, Zip disks, Jazz Drives, Scsi drives, etc. The hardware vendors could barely keep up.

But all this started to change around 2000, 2001, Apple introduces Mac OSX, and Microsoft comes up with Windows 2000/ Windows XP, the computer became reliable, the storage media started to settle, and customers frowned at those $1000-$4000 hardware DAW prices that they could replicate on reliable Windows 2000/XP or Mac OSX for a lot less

Most of the hardware DAW manufacturers felt the pinch and Voila, here we are today All but Tascam and Zoom basically surrendered to cheaper (and IMO) inferior set of solutions in the form of the Software DAW + a general purpose computer

 

[shredd]

Most of the hardware DAW manufacturers felt the pinch and Voila, here we are today/ All but Tascam and Zoom basically surrendered to cheaper (and IMO) inferior set of solutions in the form of the Software DAW + a general purpose computer

Yup. Great post....that's exactly how I remember it happening (and I was there through all of it...tells ya how old I am!!!).
I vividly remember being in the early 00's and having everyone everywhere having spasms about how all the new DAWs were the wave of the future and 'hardware' recording was going the way of the wax-cylinder recording method. And after a few failures on "ordinary" WinBlows 2000 & XP computers, I spent a ton of time and a pretty good bundle of do-re-mi on researching and building the 'ultimate' purpose-built PC, strictly for music - it didn't even have a modem or a web browser.
And it didn't work for Shinola.
So I reverted back to my (then) modern/powerful digital MTR (a $75 Fostex MR-8!!) and had not so much as a hiccup or blip or freeze or error message.
Have NEVER looked back - have been 100% purpose-built dedicated hardware all the way ever since.
Yes...I do have GBand on my iMac's and have fussed w it...even have a few kewl plug-ins for doing things my hardware won't...but I'd say that in the last 20 years, my recording/production activity has been done 99.94% on my hardware, including a string of amazing Tascam MTR's, leading up to my current (O/G DP-32).

 

[lastmonk]

After all that's is it "ultimate prupose-bulit"

The P.C. (Personal Computer) is a general purpose computer. It is used for home gaming, kid schoolwork & homework, mom & dad's bills, plan the family garden, its used for family entertainment of all kinds, engineers use it for computations and work and at school, graphic artists use it to create art, criminals use it to scam unsuspecting users, scientists use it for experiments, authors trying to write the next great novel use it, policemen use it in their cruisers to fight crime and the list goes on.

The P.C. wasn't created for one kind of application.


On the other hand the Portastudio was made primarily with musicians, songwriters, recording engineers, and recording artists in mind. Everything about it is directed at the activities encountered during the process of song writing, recording a performance, mixing and mastering a song.

When the general purpose P.C. was being invented, songwriters, musicians, recording artists, composers were not the primary audience. Whereas with the Portastudio 'dedicated computer' thats exactly who are being targeted.


There is just no way that a general purpose computer + a software DAW hits the spot in the same way as a dedicated portastudio.

At the end of the day for many it was a matter of trying to save a buck. Back in the late 80's and early 90's P.C. sales were through the roof, and many homes had one, so the temptation to build a home studio with $200 to $300 software DAW was overwhelming. And let's face it, there were back then and still are cracked , hacked, bit torrent versions of these software daws that can be downloaded for free. So who is going to pay the $1500 for a Tascam, or $4000 for a Roland VS 2480, when you can get the same functionality with a P.C. and a software DAW at the fraction of a cost.

BUT! They weren't happy with the keyboard and the mouse, there was a race to get a hardware controller, that gave the software daw users the illusion that they were using a dedicated machine. And now if you look at one of these DAW based computer studios

They've got hundreds of dollars invested in to hardware controllers, input controllers, sliders, faders, and knobs, midi controllers all trying to simulate the dedicated device. So today (in terms of money and cost) you could be talking

• $100 - $2500 for a good audio interface
• $300 -$3000 for a good 16, 32, 24 channel surface controller
• $1500 $4000 for a fully loaded Mac or PC to run the software DAW
• $500+, or worse annual subscription fee for the DAW software

so back in the late 90's and early 2000's the general purpose computer + software DAW appeared to be the most affordable option. But that's not true today.

There are several very good and very complete MTR for under $1200. And you can get the cadillac sonic view for between $4000 - $6000 So the tables have turned

Meanwhile AVID (the ProTools company) has been sold to vulture capitalists. I think Protools days may be numbered. Cubase is considered grand pa's DAW, and the young folks are having none of it. Cakewalk is no longer the apple-of-the-eye Waves just faced massive back-lash for trying to force subscriptions on their user base, The Ableton push 3 hardware is causing many of the Ableton live software users to reconsider the hardware standalone option, and The MPC, Maschine+, SP 404 (dedicated) Hardware Music Production boxes are selling like hot cakes

Can you imagine , where Tascam 2488, the Roland VS 2480, the Korg 3200, the Akai 24 DPS, etc had kept innovating with their mix of digital mixer, midi , and audio editing up until present day? Wow We lost a lot when those companies stopped their focus on the hardware DAW.

We would have definitely had big screens by now, and HDMI out, and video or USB

 

[-mjk-]

The rap was cute. If the Hardware vs. Software discussion continues I'll move the appropriate posts over to this thread: https://www.tascamforums.com/threads/standalone-hardware-recording-vs-daw-software-recording.8412/

 

[-mjk-]

Can you imagine , where Tascam 2488, the Roland VS 2480, the Korg 3200, the Akai 24 DPS, etc had kept innovating with their mix of digital mixer, midi , and audio editing up until present day? Wow We lost a lot when those companies stopped their focus on the hardware DAW.

I can imagine - they would all be out of business. The issue is not the recording (that's easy); how do you implement a hardware based editing platform that can compete with a DAW? As much as I like the DP-32, it cannot do slip editing and it is a royal pain-in-the-neck to line tracks up.

Companies have given up on hardware editing of video content also. It's not just practical anymore. Even television studios are using software switchers and software based programming automation. Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back. Hardware control surfaces are continuing to be developed to interface with the software. That is the answer: control surfaces for software.

Even so, some companies have continued to develop audio mixing consoles with onboard recording capability. The closest thing to a new Portastudio that I am aware of is a Behringer Wing, with 64 channels of SD card recording, standard. The console features stereo channel inputs capable of mixing a total of 96 audio channels, and supports OSC so you can get full mixing automation something that none of the others are capable of. I am strongly considering one of these consoles.

 

[shredd]

@-mjk- makes a compelling and very logical case that explains the demise of the purpose-built MTR. And he's right - the glaring advantage of a daw IS editing.
Despite his being a true professional and wanting/needing to stay on the bleeding edge)...I applaud his willingness to forge into the new age/s of professional audio. It's only old dawgs like me that prefer to remain in the comfort zone of what has become an old-school approach to amateur audio. And the "young" are not interested - for one, daw's are about all most of them have ever known; and for another, they're not interested in the limitations they'd face with hardware, and prefer to deal with the many ills @lastmonk lists...
Whatever spins your beanie, right?

 

[lastmonk]

@-mjk- I really, really do understand the point you're making. And in some markets, and for some classes of users you are correct. But for other markets and other classes of users you are incorrect.

This statement "Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back." would be immediately challenged and impeached by these products and companies and communities. If you are not already familiar with these (please take a moment)

https://www.akaipro.com/mpc-one
https://www.roland.com/ca/products/fantom_series/
https://www.native-instruments.com/en/products/maschine/production-systems/maschine-plus/
https://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/nautilus/
https://www.ableton.com/en/push/
https://zoomcorp.com/en/us/digital-mixer-multi-track-recorders/multi-track-recorders/r20/

For the user's musicians, songwriters, producers, etc that use these "Stand-alone" Hardware devices with complete hardware editing and slip editing, and piano-roll editing, and touch screen editing, etc. They would vehemently disagree with you.

First each device that I have listed is considered a total music production environment for the communities that use them.

Second they all have recently released, new devices , each with a long history and a bright future,.

Third, they have totally supplanted DAWs for the communities that use them

@-mjk- Your argument only refers to a very specific segment of music production. If you are a certain kind of mix engineer, or mastering engineer, or if you came from a certain era of music production, or if you're in the studio-for-hire-business, then what you are saying is absolutely true.

But music production in the age of social media, the Internet, Artificial Intelligence, portable devices, IPhones, IPads, and the sheer dominance of digital : things have changed. DAWs were really big in the early to mid 2000's that is now changing. DAWs are a thing, they're no longer the only thing.

Your point here:

"Hardware control surfaces are continuing to be developed to interface with the software. That is the answer: control surfaces for software."

You're right, but you have to follow your own statement to its logical conclusion

Once the controller truly matches the software, they'll just embed that software in the controller like Native instruments has just done. These days, hardware controller venders are embedding more software in the controllers. This is because of the new SOC (System On a Chip) technology Did you watch Apple's WWDC 2023? They make clear what is now possible in terms of integrating system of a chip with software applications.

Your other statement:

" Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back."

In the world of musicians, film producers, engineers, producers that you interact with hardware editing may very well be a thing of the past. But its a big world out there, and the communities that I interact with hardware editing is alive and well, and destined to be the trend of the future. Do you do much international traveling?

Your argument maybe true for a few select companies here and there. But for many companies they're switching to stand-alone solutions because its more profitable and they have more control. When you produce a self contained product, your company is not at the mercy of Microsoft, Apple, or whatever Plugin company is trying to throw their weight around

The Dawless movements, the music workstation crowd, the MPC community, the Maschine+ Community, the new Ableton Push 3 community, The new direction that Korg is taking with their PA5X

https://www.korg.com/us/products/synthesizers/pa5x/

They all say that hardware digital editing , slip editing and any other kind, can and is easily done in hardware.

The brand new Yamaha breed of recording Digital Mixers

https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/mixers/dm3/index.html
https://usa.yamaha.com/products/proaudio/mixers/dm7/index.html

all disagree with your statement

" Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back."


@-mjk- when you take the position that you're taking, to keep things honest you have to add a lot of caveats and disclaimers so that your position will be accepted as true. I can list 10-20 brand new products that were just released within the last year or two, that have stand-alone hardware editing of audio as a main selling feature

In many ways it comes down to what your definition of Music Production is. There are many many guys/gals in the Hip Community that produce platinum selling (whoops platinum streaming) songs using the MPC for the recording, the mixing, and the mastering. No Daw involved! And manage to do it all (slip editing too) with the MPC touch screen. There are certain Music Production Synthesizer/Digital Workstation guys/gals like me that use the workstation as the central hub, recording vocals, drums, saxophones, etc and mixing everything right in the synthesizer (of course I export to DP 24 for final mastering) No DAW involved.

But most of what I'm talking about goes in the category of private Project Studios as opposed to Recording-Studios-for-Hire.

If you are a recording studio that is open to customers renting it, buy time, and producing a record or album the 'Old-Fashioned Way' then Yes

You better have a DAW and not just ProTools. If you have a Studio-For-Hire these days, you better at least have:

• ProTools
• FL-Studio (Very Hot Right Now)
• Logic
• Ableton
• Cubase
• Studio One (Very Hot Right Now)

But I think you have underestimated the size, scope, reach, popularity, and market influence that the Project Studio has (with all of its dedicated Hardware Editing)

 

[shredd]

VERY compelling read, @lastmonk ! And - as a firmly-entrenched old-school amateur...I'm in that corner. For me, my needs/wants, my workflow/process...hardware-based gear isn't going ANYwhere.

That said: there's a handful of guyz here (@-mjk- ,@Arjan P et al) who are real-live engineer/producer types, if not seasoned professionals. These are guyz who have 5- and 6-figures' worth of gear under-hand, know how to use it...and STILL choose to incorporate daw's into their process (whether due to professional necessity or personal preference - who knows...)

I think your long analysis makes a very salient point, which mj does all the time: use what you like, and helps/allows/encourages you make good mewzyk.

For ME - that's hardware. But that's just me...and there ayn't any record companies beating MY door down...
Good thing I don't have anyone to please other than myself - and I'm deaf as a rock...

 

[-mjk-]

Do you do much international traveling?

Do you mean besides living in Taiwan and traveling in Asia? I regularly work in 2 languages and sometimes a 3rd language, although I admit that my Thai sucks. But it's good enough to have gotten me a few stadium gigs in Thai language songs: https://photos.app.goo.gl/E18CEjKtdJrAbrSL6

I just got back from France and the UK last month.

Why do you ask?

 

[lastmonk]

@-mjk- No offense meant mate. I am aware that you are an accomplished , and celebrated professional. I am also aware that you have bonafide credentials in support of the posts that you made in this thread. Please accept my immediate and sincere genuflect and bending of the knee here.

The question was meant to get you to share all of the different viewpoints you must be running into in different parts of the world. Travelling abroad is one of the things that opened my eyes from some of the narrower viewpoints I used to hold. My assumption was that if you travelled abroad you most certainly have run into the hardware standalone trends that have been emerging in many communities through out the world. So my question was just to elicit what your thoughts were on your own experiences in that regard. Sry if my intentions were not clear

But also to keep things honest with respect to travelling, as so not to confuse other readers of this thread, as you well probably know, one can go on a tour to 12 different countries in 2 months, and never see anything about those countries except for your hotel room, a few restaurants, the stage you are performing on, and few barely discernable faces in the audience. It is entirely possible and usually the case for bands, performers, and the sound support staff to go on a world tour and all they come back with is photos, stories about the food, and lost luggage nightmares You're in one city in one country today, and in another city and another country the next day. If you're lucky you get a chance to see a few sights, take a few photos, go to a famous pub or two and its off to the next gig.

On the other hand, if your are lucky enough to have time to share and exchange culturally, and socially with the various music production communities in the various countries, then you invariably discover that the economics of music production gear is different depending on what country you're in. One music paradigm excels in Japan, and that same music paradigm is not sustainable in Sudan Africa. Some popular music production trend in India, could be a financial failure in Jamaica. Gear and approaches to music production that is all the craze in Abu-Dabi maybe frowned upon in the United States and so on.

When you posted the very broad virtually universal statement:

" Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back."

What came to my mind was that if @-mjk- has been around he has to know better than
that. So my question was really only meant to get you to be introspective and just think about what you have to already know to be true about hardware editing.

In either case no offense was meant. I did want to point out that there are a great many "Project Studios" (not to be confused with commercial Recording Studios) through out the world that are using hardware editing, DAWLESS setups to produce commercially viable music. And that the gear many of them are using is new gear i.e. produced and sold after 2018. In addition to this SOC (System Of a Chip) technology and new display technologies in 2023 and beyond allows the software that runs on a general purpose computer in a DAW to be put directly into the new and upcoming surface controllers, desk controllers, and midi controllers. The evolution and trend of the hardware controller is to embedd software

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_on_a_chip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen

New technologies that support dedicated devices, dedicated special purpose computers, the cost and innovations of SOC and new touch screen technologies have created a decline in the general purpose computers. That my friend is fact.

https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2021...ters-as-a-general-purpose-technology/fulltext

The conditions, dynamics and economics that created the popular adoption of the software based DAW , i.e. cost of memory, storage bonanza, large screens, advanced user interfaces, etc, have all changed. Streaming , digital, templates, machine learning, and AI has totally transformed the Music Business. Music Production as we knew in 2010 and earlier is dramatically different in 2023 and beyond. Your statement:

" Like it or not, hardware editing is finished and it's not coming back."

is not likely to age well. Hence my question about you travelling internationally can really be
restated as:

You are not serious are you? or You don't really believe that do you? or because of your
world traveling You know better than that don't you?

And after of all I'm a fanboy of the hardware editing that I routinely use on my
Tascam DP 24, Tascam Model 12, and Tascam DP-02, Of course on a forum named
"tascamforums" I'm going to be a little defensive

I suspect (or at least am hopeful) that Tascam might be adding the Portastudio software to their Sonicview at some point in the future

https://tascam.com/us/product/sonicview_xp/top

 

[-mjk-]

Except for one thing: i'm not real all that interested in music. It's a business for me. I don't go looking for new music and I don't go looking for new artists because I do not listen to music for recreation. And I'm not interested in these various communities. I honestly couldn't care less what they're doing. I seek recreation in a different form.

So the viewpoints that I have while traveling in the various countries I've been to have very little to do with music with the possible exception of some northern Thai and southern Lao country music. I do have some compositions based on the Isaan style which is a hybrid of northern Thailand and Lao languages. I spent several years in that part of the world. And while perhaps mildly interesting it really doesn't have anything to contribute to the discussion.

Sorry, I guess that was more than one thing.

 

[lastmonk]

@-mjk- I apologize I've made assumptions I shouldn't have made Now, I have a clear context for your posts and your positions

Its all good., and I can respect where you're at. I am an enthusiast in a few areas and sometimes I assume (usually wrongly so) that others see the world as I do.

Again, you have my sincerest apologies, no disrespect was intended

 

[-mjk-]

No offense taken @lastmonk. The assumptions are understandable as most people (naturally) assume that because I've been a recording artist since I was in high school and had a studio production deal when I was 23, that I'm "into" music. The fact is, I missed a great deal of music, movies and pretty much everything else during the early years because I was busy and very focused. I literally lived on the road. I had no address. I slept the bus. I didn't have a home but I had a 1954 Les Paul special so I didn't care. When we were recording, we kept the bus parked in front of the studio and lived in it. When the city made us move the bus, I slept on the floor in the main recording room. A few years later I did my first record as a solo recording engineer. By 1985 I was being mentioned in industry magazines (Spin, October 1985) and had weekly contributions to Boston music scene publications about who I was working with and what new tunes were coming out of the studio. I literally spent the first 1/2 of my life in the studio. I only know the music from the bands I worked with or otherwise personally know and only a few others I heard about from NYC. Interesting, I read an interview with Tom Scholz where he was saying the same thing about now knowing many of the popular recording artists and I could relate.

What came to my mind was that if @@-mjk- has been around he has to know better than
that. So my question was really only meant to get you to be introspective and just think about what you have to already know to be true about hardware editing.

Yeah, my wife does stuff like that. She works with what she thinks I should know and it doesn't work out well for me since I can't live up to her expectations in that regard.

The question was meant to get you to share all of the different viewpoints you must be running into in different parts of the world

The viewpoints are the same. Decisions are always based on money. $60 for Reaper is cheaper than anything else and does it all. The professional musicians that I personally know in other countries do not have separate editing solutions for each individual aspect of the production process. Editing is done in a DAW, especially in professional studios where they record. Their emphasis is on live performances.

@@-mjk- when you take the position that you're taking, to keep things honest you have to add a lot of caveats and disclaimers so that your position will be accepted as true. I can list 10-20 brand new products that were just released within the last year or two, that have stand-alone hardware editing of audio as a main selling feature

Again, I'm not offended, but you've pushed me into a place where I don't want to be. You've made me sound like some rich, arrogant braggart just to make a few points. I actually dislike talking about my career because I think it puts off the forum users in general so I only mention relevant things that are germane to the discussion. I don't want them to feel that I'm unapproachable for any reason.

I accept your beliefs about the topics in this thread. I think you are incorrect about some things and I also do not think that the links you've posted prove anything. There is no new Digital Portastudio. There has been ample time to produce one. Phil at Behringer opens his videos by saying "We're all using DAWs now" and that's that. The software that you are referring to having been embedded is that company's own proprietary software for working on the production aspect of that machine only. No one has put Reaper on a chip. There is no single machine that can do what Reaper does. I also consider some of those devices as toys rather than serious production tools. There is a huge difference between someone making "beats" with loops and making human performance records. I know people are using iPhones to make music. I assume that someone will also cut a vocal using a paper cup and a string with a pickup on it. All of this means nothing if you can't write a good song.

At this point I am going to disengage from this discussion. I'll move the relevant posts over to the never-ending debate thread. No offense meant, and I'm not saying I'm on higher level than you are, I'm just saying I'm on a totally different plane of thought.