boss launch the micro br80 to replace the micro br

[Geir]

Indeed I am Cuthbert !

Sorry for jumpimg in on the  BR80 thread

So the BR 80 is a real 8 track recorder?

man I need one of those !!!

[cuthbert]

Indeed I am Cuthbert !

Sorry for jumpimg in on the  BR80 thread

So the BR 80 is a real 8 track recorder?

man I need one of those !!!

No worries, man! Yes indeed, it is a real 8 track recorder - in that respect, it's like the original Micro BR times two!  

[64Guitars]

maybe 12 tracks instead of 8.

I think 8 would be enough

Yes, 8's certainly enough. But 12 would be better.

, if it really where 8. In fact it's 4+ 2 stereo!! 6 + 2 would be FAR BETTER !!!!

I think you're confusing tracks/channels with faders. All of the BRs which Roland advertises as having 8 playback tracks do in fact have 8 playback tracks and an 8-channel mixer section. But they don't all have 8 faders. Instead, certain faders control the level of two adjacent tracks simultaneously. When you record in stereo, you must use two adjacent tracks, whether they're controlled by one fader or two. Since it's cheaper for Roland to use a single fader and easier for the end-user when recording in stereo, they do that for one or two pairs of tracks. That seems reasonable to me and I don't think that there'd be any great advantage to having eight separate faders, or six mono faders plus one stereo fader. Any time you record 8 tracks, you're bound to have at least one stereo pair for keyboards or stereo effects. And more often than not, you'll have two or more stereo pairs. So why would you need separate faders for those tracks? Isn't it easier to just have one fader for each stereo pair? The fader arrangement on the BR-800 and BR-600 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5/6, 7/8) should never be a problem unless you're recording more than 4 mono tracks in your first 8-track session (ie; before the first bounce). But why would you? Many of the effects in the BR-800 and BR-600 have a stereo output. If you use any of those effects and record to a single track, the sound will be quite bland compared with how it would sound if recorded to a stereo pair of tracks. So, unless you're not using any effects or you're only using the mono effects (neither of which seems very likely for most recordings), you'll probably need more stereo pairs than mono tracks. I know I do. For example, my last project (Poison Ivy) had 4 mono tracks and 11 stereo pairs (for a total of 26 tracks). Eight of those stereo pairs were keyboard tracks which I could have pre-mixed on the keyboard, but I wanted to do the final mix in Audacity so I kept them separate. Two pairs were drum tracks from hydrogen; one for the full kit and one for the guiro. I could have combined them in Hydrogen but I wanted to be able to control the level of the guiro independently in the final mix. The final pair was the stereo vocal mix from Greeny. So, having eight separate faders wouldn't have helped me while recording that song. In fact, I would have found it quite helpful to have a couple of stereo pairs available, each controlled by a single fader. Oddly enough, the guitar tracks in that particular recording were all mono because I didn't use any stereo effects. If I had, then the only mono track would have been the bass. That's usually the case in most of my recordings because I always seem to use the stereo effects. Poison Ivy was an exception to that.

As a BR-864 user, I actually envy you BR-800 and BR-600 users with your six faders (4 mono and 2 stereo pairs). The BR-864 only has four faders which are bank-switched to control eight tracks. When you switch banks, the fader position doesn't correspond to the track's level, which can cause a lot of trouble. I'd much rather have six faders like the BR-800 and BR-600. It would be so nice not having to deal with bank switching anymore, and those single-fader stereo pairs would come in really handy for me. The only thing I don't like about the faders on the BR-800 and BR-600 is their short travel. Although I haven't tried them, I'm sure they'd be too sensitive and it would be difficult to do smooth fades. The faders in the BR-864 and BR-900 have a longer travel and are much nicer in my opinion.

[64Guitars]

I do wish Roland would retain the emphasis on multitrack recording (I'm not a fan of the other modes on the BR-80), and just make their recorders consistent and easy to use.   

I agree. The extra modes seem unnecessary to me and cause unnecessary confusion for the user. Why do you need a separate mode to record two tracks? You can already do that in multitrack mode. And I think most of the features of eBand mode could have been incorporated into multitrack mode, eliminating the need for three modes.

[IanR]

Billy Hyde's in Greensborough is selling two MBRs for $69 each this weekend.  Anyone want one??

cheers,

Ian

[Geir]

I think you're confusing tracks/channels with faders

Not really. I know there are 8x8 tracks 64 

The "problem" is that I usually use far more mono-tracks than stereo, and especially for vocals I'd like to have 6 mono tracks. It's not a big deal tho, I've come from the mbr so I'm used to bouncing 4 tracks down to two and know what to expect when I add more tracks to them later.

If the L/R of stereotracks could be panned individually it would solve all my problems ...... well at least with this issue

[64Guitars]

I think you're confusing tracks/channels with faders

Not really. I know there are 8x8 tracks 64 

Sorry. I didn't mean to suggest that you were confused. It's just that your earlier comment might have confused some people into thinking that the BR-800 doesn't really have 8 playback tracks. I just wanted to point out that it does. It just doesn't have a separate fader for each of those eight tracks. Instead, it combines 5/6 and 7/8 with a single fader each. Actually, under the hood, there is a separate potentiometer for each of the eight tracks. It's just that the four potentiometers for tracks 5 through 8 are controlled by only two knobs. The underlying dual pots are coupled to a single knob. They probably look something like this:

Notice that there are six connection points on the bottom of the pot. A normal mono pot would only have three. That's because the dual pot is really like two regular pots side-by-side (one for each track) with a single lever simultaneously moving both wipers.

The "problem" is that I usually use far more mono-tracks than stereo, and especially for vocals I'd like to have 6 mono tracks. It's not a big deal tho, I've come from the mbr so I'm used to bouncing 4 tracks down to two and know what to expect when I add more tracks to them later.

Yeah, I guess if you record a lot of vocal tracks (background vocals, harmonies, doubling, etc), then it would be handy to have more mono tracks available. As it is, you just have to plan the order in which you record your tracks. Since you'll usually have at least some stereo tracks, plan on recording them before the first bounce. Then, after the bounce, you'll have four empty mono tracks available for your background vocals. You'll need a stereo pair for the bounce anyway, so that only leaves one empty stereo pair.

[Gutjahr]

Hi:

A simple question: I want to sing through the built-in microphone and play the electric guitar at the same time. Obviously I want to record them on separate tracks.

I have not found a possibility to do this so far. Any ideas?

BR
Tom

[Kenny B]

Sorry for jumping in but I have been checking out all this info
on the BR 80 / Micro BR /  BR 800 ...

I would like 16 mono + 2 stereo for playback / mixing / mastering ... 4 virtual tracks
for each would be good enough ... that's only 80 total per song ... and a FADE edit option
for all tracks would be priceless ... a TRIM can be done with a COPY.

I do have a couple questions on the BR 80 drums vs. the MICRO BR if it wasn't already
covered somewhere ... I know they sound better but are there different patterns and is the
programming much different? 

[Geir]

A simple question: I want to sing through the built-in microphone and play the electric guitar at the same time. Obviously I want to record them on separate tracks.

I have not found a possibility to do this so far. Any ideas?

Hi Tom. And welcome !!

You say microphone (as in one mic ?) so I assume you have the original MicroBR. Well it doesn't really matter, the answer is the same for MicroBR and MicroBR-80: NO.

The guitar-input will be mixed with the internal mic on the mbr, so you'll have to set the balance between them as you record. (MBR Manual pg 39).

The BR-80 can't record guitar and internal mic at the same time at all, as far as I've figured out (only had it for two weeks tho).

The BR800 will on the other hand record the guitar to one track and the two mics to another.