Which recorder(s) do you currently use?

[Geir]

I just recently purchased the MBR, and I love it!
I'm still learning how to use it correctly....
Also, I use Audacity alot.

LG

Finally !!! Welcome to the family and congrats Larry!! You won't regret it !!!!

oh ... almost forgot ... I use the mbr  too

and sometimes a Korg D16

[Bluesberry]

Yeah hooooo.  Great news lg.  I can't wait to hear what you come up with on the little shiny wonder-box.

[Greeny]

I just recently purchased the MBR, and I love it!
I'm still learning how to use it correctly....
Also, I use Audacity alot.

LG

Hey Larry! Welcome to the club! You know what the micro can do with a bit of learning / practice under your belt. I guess we'll be hearing some new material from you soon... ! That's great news.

[lg]

Thanks guys. Yeah, I am very excited about it too!
Now the trick will be to find some time....LOL

LG

[tony]

I think the MBR is possibly the best non-instrument (apart from perhaps a metronome, and it is that as well) that I have ever bought. I've used it for an enormous range of musical functions both in recording and practice, and as an mp3 player.  But I'm getting drawn back to Garageband (even though I don't like sitting in front of a computer) because I can see all the tracks open at once, I can make adjustments much more quickly through sliders and mutes and I can sample and that is something I want to explore.

[64Guitars]

I'm getting drawn back to Garageband (even though I don't like sitting in front of a computer) because I can see all the tracks open at once, I can make adjustments much more quickly through sliders and mutes and I can sample and that is something I want to explore.

Here are some reasons why I prefer hardware recorders to software DAWs:

https://songcrafters.org/community/index.php?topic=220.msg1245#msg1245

Of course, there are some great advantages to a software DAW too. But, for me, they don't outweigh the disadvantages. I think a compromise is the best way to go. Use the BR for capturing your tracks. Then, when it's desirable and convenient, export your tracks using the BR Wave Converter and import them into your software DAW for further processing and mixing.

I really like the Zoom HD8/HD16 and R16 recorders. They have a much better interface to the computer, and the faders and other controls can be used as a control surface with your favourite software DAW. That solves one of my main complaints against software DAWs - the lack of real controls. And the Zooms record their tracks in standard WAV format, so you can copy tracks back and forth between the recorder and your software DAW without any conversion. It's the best of both worlds. You can use your computer when it's convenient, using real faders and controls. And, when it's not convenient to use the computer, you've got a complete, stand-alone hardware recorder on which you can record tracks, use effects, program drums, mix, and master.

I usually recommend the BR-600 to first-time buyers rather than the Micro BR because I think it's important to have real fader controls. The BR-600 also has many other great features not found on the Micro BR and doesn't cost all that much more.

[SteveG]

Micro BR works for me as I have to set up in any vacant nook or cranny available, but access to a DAW later is essential as well, so agree fully. Would like all them extra bells and whistles on the big boys mind....

[tony]

I think a compromise is the best way to go. Use the BR for capturing your tracks. Then, when it's desirable and convenient, export your tracks using the BR Wave Converter and import them into your software DAW for further processing and mixing.

[...] It's the best of both worlds. You can use your computer when it's convenient, using real faders and controls. And, when it's not convenient to use the computer, you've got a complete, stand-alone hardware recorder on which you can record tracks, use effects, program drums, mix, and master.

I usually recommend the BR-600 to first-time buyers rather than the Micro BR because I think it's important to have real fader controls. The BR-600 also has many other great features not found on the Micro BR and doesn't cost all that much more.

I have to agree with this.  When I first got the MBR, about Nov/Dec last year, I was over the moon with what it could do.  I didn't exploit a fraction of it and I still don't.  But it was so nice to take a guitar, lead and the MBR and just record stuff.  Then the drummer in my then band got a BR600 and we would use that at rehearsal or around the kitchen table and I got to know how good that is.  I agree that it would be my first choice if I was buying again.  But these days, I'm trying to write some songs rather than just play covers/arrangements as the guitarist in the band and I think I will use anything that will help me build an arrangement. And that's where Garageband is so useful.

The recent discussion of GTR+MIC helped me a lot.  I didn't realise it was there and it is great, much better than a software DAW, for getting something worked out (singing -and I sing soooo crap- and playing some harmony underneath) that I prefer the MBR to anything bigger.

Like everything, it's horses for courses, and you have to work out what you want to use it for.  The nice thing about the MBR is that it is so full of goodies that that process takes a long time (and a lot of fun).

[SenhorLampada]

Micro BR was a great addition to my equipment
I almost bought Korg D4, but got BR instead!

I'd like to buy other recorder for a less mobile, but more direct editing enviroment...
Would D4 be the ideal gear?

Or maybe some BR-600, BR-1200, etc?
If all BR data are alike, it would be great to record 'on-the-go' on the micro, and then take the CARD to edit on the tabletop gear 

[SenhorLampada]

Oh! only the Micro uses SD