Micro BR 32-track mixing with Behringer B-Control Fader BCF2000

[64Guitars]

The Micro BR allows you to record 32 discrete tracks. The only trouble is, you can only mix four tracks at a time. The obvious solution to this problem is to export the 32 discrete tracks to your computer as wave files and import them into Cubase or some other DAW for final mixing of all 32 tracks. However, I don't like having to control track levels and other parameters with a mouse. I need real fader controls and switches.

One practical solution is the Behringer B-Control Fader BCF2000. It includes eight motorized faders and lots of other programmable controls and switches which can control parameters in your DAW via midi over USB. The eight faders can be assigned to several banks so that you can switch between banks and mix all 32 discrete tracks from the Micro BR at once -- no bouncing required. And, because the faders are motorized, they return to the correct positions when you switch banks.

Of course, you'd still need to do some bouncing on the Micro BR, but only so you can hear what you've recorded so far while you're recording new tracks. Once the bounces have served their purpose, the tracks can be erased and re-used for more recording, allowing you to use all 32 tracks. The bounced tracks will not be used in your final mix -- only the discrete tracks will be used.

Here's a link to some YouTube videos demonstrating the BCF2000. It's fascinating to see those motorized faders flying around under computer control.

Seems like a pretty nice mixing solution for only $199.99 US. Has anyone here tried this, or anything like it? If so, please give us your comments.

[Flash Harry]

Hi,

I have tried this sort of technique on my PC, but it starts to struggle with more than 8 audio tracks if there is any signal processing on, i.e. EQ to add a bit or air to a accoustic or a chorus on a bass or even reverb to on a vocal. So i've opted for some old kit. I have a alesis XT ADAT recorder and a few outboard effects and a reasonable mixer.

I have to say though that you can't beat the MBR for portability, immediacy and functionality.

Record and assemble on the MBR and play it into the ADAT.  Hardware is always faster.

Harry

[64Guitars]

I have tried this sort of technique on my PC, but it starts to struggle with more than 8 audio tracks if there is any signal processing on

I've never done much with software DAWs, so I didn't even think of the possibility that the computer might not be fast enough. But you're right -- the more tracks you try to mix on the computer, the more work it has to do in the same amount of time. My old 2.4GHz Pentium 4 probably isn't up to it. But I'm hoping to replace it this winter. Then I'll experiment with a software DAW to see how many tracks I can mix reliably.

[drutgat]

These are very interesting ideas.

But it seems to me that a question needs to be answered before one engages in all of this using a Micro BR, as opposed to tracking on a computer.

And that question is, what kind of output quality is the Micro BR capable of, and with what kind of (ergonomic) limits?

For example, what sample/bitrate is the Micro BR capable of in comparison to a software DAW on a computer? While the Micro BR is the best in its class, I can't see it winning out over a computer based software program.

What do you think?

[64Guitars]

While the Micro BR is the best in its class, I can't see it winning out over a computer based software program.

It doesn't have to. The Micro BR offers greater portability and convenience for recording tracks, and I assume that any Micro BR owner will be recording their tracks on the Micro BR rather than with a software DAW. My idea concerns only the final mixing of those tracks. If done on the Micro BR, you're limited to mixing four tracks at a time, so you have to do a lot of bouncing. But if you convert your Micro BR tracks to wave files using the BR Wave Converter and use a software DAW running on a fast computer, you could potentially mix all 32 tracks at once (no bouncing). To maintain the quality of the Micro BR tracks, the recording quality of the DAW has to be as good as, or better than, the Micro BR's quality. Provided the computer is fast enough to process all of the track data simultaneously, recording quality shouldn't be a problem.

[drutgat]

While the Micro BR is the best in its class, I can't see it winning out over a computer based software program.

It doesn't have to. The Micro BR offers greater portability and convenience for recording tracks, and I assume that any Micro BR owner will be recording their tracks on the Micro BR rather than with a software DAW. My idea concerns only the final mixing of those tracks. If done on the Micro BR, you're limited to mixing four tracks at a time, so you have to do a lot of bouncing. But if you convert your Micro BR tracks to wave files using the BR Wave Converter and use a software DAW running on a fast computer, you could potentially mix all 32 tracks at once (no bouncing). To maintain the quality of the Micro BR tracks, the recording quality of the DAW has to be as good as, or better than, the Micro BR's quality. Provided the computer is fast enough to process all of the track data simultaneously, recording quality shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for your reply.

I think that we'll have to agree to differ on this. I still think that the quality of the recorder is an issue in that a well equipped, fully functioning DAW will easily outperform the Micro BR. Also, I don't think that Micro BR owners will just record on a Micro BR, as you said.

I, for instance, am using the unit as an audio notepad, which is a veyr different function for me than getting on to the computer and tracking in a more comprehensive way.

[Greeny]

While the Micro BR is the best in its class, I can't see it winning out over a computer based software program.

It doesn't have to. The Micro BR offers greater portability and convenience for recording tracks, and I assume that any Micro BR owner will be recording their tracks on the Micro BR rather than with a software DAW. My idea concerns only the final mixing of those tracks. If done on the Micro BR, you're limited to mixing four tracks at a time, so you have to do a lot of bouncing. But if you convert your Micro BR tracks to wave files using the BR Wave Converter and use a software DAW running on a fast computer, you could potentially mix all 32 tracks at once (no bouncing). To maintain the quality of the Micro BR tracks, the recording quality of the DAW has to be as good as, or better than, the Micro BR's quality. Provided the computer is fast enough to process all of the track data simultaneously, recording quality shouldn't be a problem.

Thanks for your reply.

I think that we'll have to agree to differ on this. I still think that the quality of the recorder is an issue in that a well equipped, fully functioning DAW will easily outperform the Micro BR. Also, I don't think that Micro BR owners will just record on a Micro BR, as you said.

I, for instance, am using the unit as an audio notepad, which is a veyr different function for me than getting on to the computer and tracking in a more comprehensive way.

I'm recording ENTIRELY on the BR. The only external equipment I use (apart from my guitars) is a wah pedal. I'm sure I could do all sorts of impressive things with DAW software, but I've never felt the need. I just want to write the song and record it with enough quality for it to be listenable. I think the BR is doing that just fine. In fact, the only limitations (in my opinion) are the quality of the songs and the talent you put into it!

I think it's just down to personal tastes / preferences.

Sorry - not being defensive... just proving that people do use the BR as their one-stop recording tool! 

[drutgat]

Thanks for your reply.

I think that we'll have to agree to differ on this. I still think that the quality of the recorder is an issue in that a well equipped, fully functioning DAW will easily outperform the Micro BR. Also, I don't think that Micro BR owners will just record on a Micro BR, as you said.

I, for instance, am using the unit as an audio notepad, which is a veyr different function for me than getting on to the computer and tracking in a more comprehensive way.
[/quote]

I'm recording ENTIRELY on the BR. The only external equipment I use (apart from my guitars) is a wah pedal. I'm sure I could do all sorts of impressive things with DAW software, but I've never felt the need. I just want to write the song and record it with enough quality for it to be listenable. I think the BR is doing that just fine. In fact, the only limitations (in my opinion) are the quality of the songs and the talent you put into it!

I think it's just down to personal tastes / preferences.

Sorry - not being defensive... just proving that people do use the BR as their one-stop recording tool! 
[/quote]
Hi LesPaulGold,
I appreciate you being willing to participate in a friendly disagreement - on some other forums people seem to get so hot under the collar, defending their positions, and I don't find that you've done that, and I hope that you don't experience me like that, either.

So, I guess that there are people like you - who use the MBR exclusively - and people like me, for whom the unit is a valuable aid, but not the only piece of equipment we use.

As you say, it's down to personal tastes/preferences.

Thanks very much for the dialogue.

[Flash Harry]

I have an Alesis ADAT XT and I've just bought an ADAT card for my PC. I use a Soundcraft Spirit Folio as a mic pre-amp and to insert analog effects and as an input to the ADAT machine.

The quality of output from the MBR is not as good as the ADD kit that I have and there is noise from the quantisation and from the signal processing which, although well hidden within in the tracks recorded on the MBR, is noticable.

That said, it is far easier to pick up the MBR, plug in, play and produce a decent recording of your work. It takes a moment to do and there is no patching, fiddling, clearing of the dining room table to get your kit together or any of that stuff. It's just switch on and go.

I use the MBR all the time. I may start using the rest of the stuff more frequently if I get my own space to put it all together and leave in an operatinonal state.

I used to have a Tascam Portastudio. This was noisy, both mechanically and electronically but it was preferable to the 'Professional' kit around at the time becasue of it's size and with the DBX noise supression turned on, it gave reasonable results.

I think that the MBR is in keeping with the spirit of genuine creative music. Apart from the drum machine, which, it could be argued is a bit more than a glorified metronome, the machine is lacking all the stuff that allows  for automation of music production, which means (as I have found to my shame) that you have to be a good player and a good musician to get good results. It drives you to improve your technique and skills.

I think that we have to look at what we have here. It's a portable device with a remarkable number of useful features and an incredible quality of output and all for less than £150. It's not intended to replace a fully functioning digital audio recording studio. If that is what you want you should buy one of those.

Rant over. 

[Greeny]

Hi LesPaulGold,
I appreciate you being willing to participate in a friendly disagreement - on some other forums people seem to get so hot under the collar, defending their positions, and I don't find that you've done that, and I hope that you don't experience me like that, either.

So, I guess that there are people like you - who use the MBR exclusively - and people like me, for whom the unit is a valuable aid, but not the only piece of equipment we use.

As you say, it's down to personal tastes/preferences.

Thanks very much for the dialogue.

Yep... the only thing that matters is that we all make great music