Boss SY-300 (was "Boss new product teaser video")

[AndyR]

I know you're right guys... Eventually, that's where I'll end up. Certainly when my BR1600 dies.

But using a DAW is where I came from - things were going OK, not too bad... but the results were uninspiring, and I was getting ready to give up and find something more exciting/satisfying to do (in other words, my drawing and painting - which I'm also not bad at - is STILL on hold from back then! ).

My wife got me one of the original MBRs as a songwriting "notebook", and I was immediately producing far better finished recordings (some using as many as 50 tracks!) with the standalone solution. I got myself a BR1600 to make the workflow "easier", and the output quality stayed. I never went back to a DAW (although I have tested Presonus and quite like it).

I'd been using a DAW for 2-3 years up until Boss arrived in my life... and suddenly productivity and quality went through the ceiling.

I think there were three main drawbacks last time I was using a DAW -

1. The quality of the (EDIROL) DAC I was using compared to the ones built into the Boss units.
2. Good old PC issues and having to fanny about all the time (I'm actually in IT, so I'm not too scared of getting my hands dirty, but I want to create recordings, not nurse the bluddy box all the time).
3. The sheer number of options available with a DAW - I spent all my time twiddling because I could.

When I switched to the Boss standalones, it was a complete revelation. I was expecting the results to be lower quality from these "toys". But no!! And added to that, it was like going back to a multi-track tape environment - the machine took a back seat and I spent my time using the tool rather than worrying whether the tool could do more for me. In however many years it is, I have only had two "omigod!!" stoppages with the BR1600, and both were easily fixable. The rest has been make music when I feel like it. With the DAW, it was nutty-professor time every time I started a new project - and I'm a guy who is good at templates etc for productivity. And then the thing would grind to a halt all the time.

I'm sure I can exercise a bit more restraint with a DAW now. I have LOADS more experience and know what I'm trying to achieve - well, I knew that last time... it's more I didn't know how to achieve it with EQ, compression, etc, etc... And I suspect that DAWs are more friendly and PCs more capable of running them now (this is from using the Presonus evaluation copy on my old XP desktop - I didn't have to do ANY driver fiddling, it sorted itself out and went "ok ready, use me")

So, switching backing to a DAW is not as scary as it was, but it's still a bit "oh do I have to??".

And to do so, I need a better interface than the EDIROL one and, in my mind, another laptop/pc (so I can dedicate it to the studio and safely ditch all the virus crap and associated system hogging stuff). I would also like a mixing desk control surface - although I could manage without ... so all in all, it doesn't sound quite as cheap as  I imagine when I start thinking!!

I dunno, I know the BR1600 is a computer, but it doesn't feel like a computer when I use it. And somehow, using a computer with music has so far just killed the vibe for me.

I'll get there, though

It might be this guitar-synth stuff that pushes me that way... but, interestingly, after posting my last reply in this thread, I switched the lap-top off, went to the broom-cupboard and immersed myself in getting bass, piano, and organ parts onto my latest thingy. That was frustrating and enjoyable as usual, and I'll find out how it went tonight when I get home... thing thing is, I haven't thought about SY-300, GR-55/GK-3, or Triple Shot once since then, and I feel totally gas-free looking at this thread at work. Who needs a DAW and a guitar-synth when the combination of me and the broom-cupboard can already do what I was doing yesterday?!!

[Speed Demon]

There is always this, in life: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

I'm still using a Boss eBand for all my recording. Only a single input for everything. I do one track at a time then load them all into Audition and/or Mixcraft for the editing/cursing work. Simple. Effective.

I've developed numerous presets that can be called up instantly when needed. They cover all the effects I like to
use on music tracks so applying them is quick and painless. Such as stereo field, EQ, compression, limiting and special effects.

[64Guitars]

Andy, there's no need to abandon hardware recorders completely and switch exclusively to a software DAW. You can have the best of both worlds. Software DAWs are great for mixing and editing. They're also great for creating drum and keyboard tracks. But for recording guitar and bass tracks, I'd much rather use a hardware recorder. It's simpler and the technology doesn't get in the way. I'm not a singer but if I was, I'd use a hardware recorder for the vocal tracks too, and for anything else that I'd be recording with mics. But once all my tracks are recorded, I'd export them to WAV files and bring them into a software DAW for editing and mixing.

Give it a try on your next project. Record all your tracks on the BR-1600, then export each track to a WAV file and mix them on the computer. I think you'll like it. It's too bad that Roland's BR Wave Converter software doesn't work with the BR-1600. It makes it really easy to export all of your tracks from the BR in a single batch operation. Without the software, I believe you have to export one track at a time. Although, there is a third-party WAV converter program you can buy. Maybe you already have it?

By using a hardware recorder to record your tracks, you eliminate the need for a good audio interface on the computer. Well, at least for recording. It might still be desirable to have an audio interface for playback, though you can get by without one if your computer has a decent sound card.

And by mixing and editing on the computer, you may find that when it comes time to replace your BR-1600, your requirements are a lot simpler than they would be if you planned to mix and edit on the hardware recorder. You just need a good quality recorder with some decent effects that can export its tracks to WAV files. The Zoom recorders have the advantage that their tracks are already in WAV format, so no conversion is necessary. You just connect the Zoom to your computer by USB and drag the tracks from the Zoom to your hard drive. Very quick and easy. And several recorders available today can be used as a control surface for your DAW, so you can mix with real faders instead of using your computer's mouse, while enjoying all of the benefits a software DAW offers for mixing and editing.

The hybrid solution of hardware recorder combined with software DAW is the way to go, in my opinion.

Here's a short article which presents a similar view in favour of the hybrid approach:

http://proaudiodvds.com/hardware-vs-software-where-do-you-stand/

[Oldrottenhead]

the immediacy of a standalone recorder wins it every time for me over a daw. tho i do agree with 64 re the mixing and editing side of things. i recently purchased a new laptop to use solely for music production. the plan being to interface the br800 with a daw on my laptop. hasn't worked out like that as by the time i get everything set up the inspiration has gone. however i have on occasion imported the wav files from the br800 (it works with the boss wav editor) and mixed the files in cubase 5.

and last time i was at flash's house in otley, we used his daw "reaper" for recording, i think we managed one song. whilst at geir's using the br800 we average at least 12 songs a trip.

[AndyR]

I come from a slightly different angle than orh - but end up at the same conclusion...

64G - by the time I've recorded all the tracks on the BR1600, the song is mostly mixed... otherwise I wouldn't be able to arrange all the parts and record all the tracks.

Typically, for a final mix, I have the following:

Drums in stereo.
Guitars mixed in stereo.
Keyboards mixed in stereo.
Backing vocals mixed in stereo.

The above have all the complementary EQ, compression and any reverb/delay already printed.

Plus the following parts still separate:

Bass mono.
Lead Vox mono.
Any overdub parts (eg lead guitar), mono or stereo as appropriate.

I create a stereo mix of "Band" (Drums, Gits, Keys, and Bass). This allows me to use different reverb (from the vox) on drums and to apply any NY/Philly/Wotever compression techiniques to drums and/or bass parts.

Then all I have to do is mix the Leads (vox and overdubs) against the backing vox into the band mix.

===========

Now, this technique could also be used on a DAW (group instruments into submixes for easier final mixing), but the problem is - when would I do it in a hybrid set-up? Even using the third party software (I have it) would take a while, then you've got to identify the tracks, get them into the DAW, etc... that's an hour at least where you're not mixing and you're not playing the next parts.

Alternatively, I could treat the submixes on the BR as "rough" and remix all the individual tracks in the DAW... but, er, why? I've already got them done. And also - finalising the submixes results in spotting what else needs recording and/or replacing - so, if that happened in the DAW, back to the BR again. If I'm on the BR, no problem, change mode and record some more.

The other option is to take the "final mix" set above and do that final mix in the DAW. Again, at the moment, why? It's the easiest bit on the BR ... why insert down time (to transfer and re-acclimatise myself) to an existing workflow - especially at a point when I'm usually fired up and ready to do it "right now". I've learnt the moves over the previous weeks while arranging and tracking, and I know exactly what it sounds like on the BR's DAC using the BR's effects.

Another issue for me is that the Drums and the band work together as part of the arranging and rehearsing. That's why I don't do drums on a PC. First I don't mind the BR's drum sounds, secondly, I find the BR's pattern and song editing sufficient, and third - I need all the parts instantly to hand on the same machine, and ready for re-recording while I'm doing the drums.

=============
It's different for different folks, but what this all leads to is:

For me, a hybrid approach would be the worst of both worlds, it would take much longer to get things done.

Remember, I've used a DAW for a couple of years. I find it far easier doing it all on a DAW or all on standalone. With the years since I last used a DAW, I know the DAW experience will be a lot easier than it was before. But it's a big investment of my time to "rebuild the studio" and then learn how to use it again (not to mention I'd be back in the "I wonder if I've got the best add-ins, etc" camp - fiddling, rather than accepting the limitations of the BR and just using it because it sounds good).

I've thought about this a lot, basically each time I come across a desire for something that would mean I have to be on a PC - like this guitar synth business. Last time, for me, it was "would drums be easier? they'd certainly be more versatile..."  The decision was "it ain't broke, yet..."

The guitar synth thing pushes me a bit further.

Sooner or later, either the BR1600 will die or I'll come across something I want SO much that it's worth moving to PC (and possibly not producing anything for MONTHS while I get it to do what I want ).

When I convert, it will be:

Decent interface
Dedicated PC/laptop
Standalone BR in the bin

This dedicated PC/Laptop won't be a "computer" in my mind. It will be my new standalone solution.

[Flash Harry]

When I convert, it will be:

Decent interface
Dedicated PC/laptop
Standalone BR in the bin

This dedicated PC/Laptop won't be a "computer" in my mind. It will be my new standalone solution.

That's how I treat the recording setup - Scarlett 8i6, Behringer BCF2000, Desktop PC, 2 monitors, Samson RA, Alesis M1's. Not used for anything else.

Although the BR is still used

[chip]

I agree with oldrottenhead and Andy R. The Br, mine being the 1200 does everything I want, the workflow is easy, it's inspirational, I can just plug in and record within minutes, the drums I do on the DR3 mostly but now and again use the kaossilator in conjunction. I can mix the whole thing on the BR and master, It sounds good to me add in the fact that it's big, has faders and looks the part, I ask myself what else would I want? The answer for me does not lie with a computer, daw or whatever, but another standalone. There's something about the hands on approach concerning these relatively big recorders that I like. I mostly use amps, and mics for recording and like that raw feel you get, I like to preserve that if I can.