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

[Oldrottenhead]

just my tuppence worth.
for £150 i get a box filled with magic, that allows me the abilty to write and record songs. the real beauty is if i get an idea within 5 minutes i can have the mbr up and running and the idea is down.
i use cubase sx2. it costs more than my mbr did. it didnt work on my pc , so i had to get a new one. £1000 plus.
pre amp for guitar, midi usb for keyboard and drum machine. starts adding up.
then there is the learning curve, configuring your sound cards etc, but i got there and can now find my way around cubase.

but since i got my mbr. i record everything on it, i then as an afterthought might import the separate tracks  into cubase to remix or dabble with effects etc. but at the end of the day the mbr in my humble opinion, is the greatest invention since the wheel.

[drutgat]

...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. 

I, too, used to have a portastudio (one of the second generations - the 244; years later I bought a 424MkII), and agree that all of these kinds of machines are great little units. In fact, I think that the advent of digital is much more forgiving in certain ways as one had to be a better technician to achieve a decent result from the analogue equipment because of all of the negative effects of bouncing.

It really is down to what one wants, though. I'm loving the Micro BR in many ways, and finding it severely limiting in ways that are not at all related to the fact that it's not a more sophisticated unit (e.g., not having a programmable drum machine as other, similar, previous units such as Zoom's PS 04 did). Personally, I still find the Micro BR's menu system arcane and non-sensical, even though I can now get around it pretty well.

I suppose that it all comes down to different strokes for different folks. Vive la differance! 

[Greeny]

I definitely miss the faders on my Tascam Portastudio 5, but that's about it. It was more intuitive to use than the BR too, but for quality of sound and in-built effect patches, the BR wins hands down.

I do miss my Tascam though - like an old, faithful friend. I hate to think of it sitting forgotten in a cupboard 

[Flash Harry]

I do miss my Tascam though - like an old, faithful friend. I hate to think of it sitting forgotten in a cupboard 

I'm glad I don't have to get mine out of the cupboard anymore. I used to leave it on top of the piano until Mrs Flash became sick of seeing it. Then it went back in the cupboard - for weeks at a time.

This is so easy to slip beside something that she doesn't even know it's there.

Result?

Peace. 

[64Guitars]

I agree wholeheartedly with oldrottenhead's comments about the advantages of a hardware multitrack recorder like the BR versus a software DAW such as Cubase. There are many reasons why I prefer a hardware multitrack recorder but perhaps the biggest reason is that my (desktop) computer is located upstairs in my office while my musical instruments are all downstairs in my living room. The BR lets me record where the instruments are rather than having to move the instruments to where the computer is, which would be impossible in my case. So, for me, a hardware multitrack recorder is the only way I'll record my tracks.

However, once my tracks are recorded, I can easily take my BR upstairs to my computer and transfer all of the tracks to wave files using the BR Wave Converter program. Then I can do the final mixing of my tracks in a software DAW such as Cubase. This offers the advantage of being able to mix all of the tracks simultaneously, instead of four at a time on the Micro BR. But, for me, a big disadvantage of using a software DAW is that you have to make all of the adjustments using a mouse and keyboard. I would much rather use real fader controls, rotary controls, and switches for making adjustments to track levels, panning, EQ, etc. That is the point of this thread. By using a control surface such as the Behringer B-Control Fader BCF2000, you can do your final mix in Cubase using real controls to make the adjustments. Also, you can potentially mix up to 32 discrete tracks from your Micro BR without including any pre-mixed bounce tracks. This gives you greater control over the final mix. And for only $180 US, the BCF2000 makes an attractive addition to a BR studio.

Personally, I'd never use a software DAW for recording my tracks. But they do offer some advantages for final mixing of those tracks, provided a control surface such as the Behringer B-Control Fader BCF2000 is connected to the computer and the DAW is configured to use it.

By the way, the Zoom HD8 and HD16 multitrack recorders offer all of the advantages of a BR (and more), and can also be used as a control surface with a software DAW (they even come with a copy of Cubase LE 4). So you can use the Zoom's faders and other controls to adjust settings in Cubase. Very cool! If I didn't already own a BR, I think I'd buy an HD8. At only $500 US, it's an incredible machine with way more features and capabilities than the $600 BR-900CD.