BR-600 instead?

[paul_k]

The MBR is great, but I'm leaning towards the BR-600. Then my daughter can sing and I can play guitar at the same time.

I know an external mixer will do all that, via line in, but I don't have one and don't want the hassle of another box of tricks.

Any comments? Anything the BR-600 can't do that the MBR does?

cheers
Paul

[64Guitars]

The Micro BR is a great little recorder for the money but the BR-600 offers a lot more for not much more money. The only reasons I can think of that anyone would choose a Micro BR over a BR-600 are size, price, and MP3 capabilities. To me, the slightly larger size of the BR-600 is actually a feature rather than a disadvantage. The larger buttons, fader controls, etc. make it easier to operate. You probably already have an MP3 player so you really don't need MP3 capabilities in your recorder too. And the price difference isn't all that much. In my opinion, the BR-600 is by far the better value.

The BR-600 has more effects than the Micro BR. See this chart for a comparison:

   BR Insert Effect Comparison.pdf

The BR-600 also has dual built-in mics, and a fully programmable drum machine with velocity-sensitive drum pads (you can create your own custom drum patterns and kits). And it's compatible with the BR Rhythm Editor software available free from Roland. The Micro BR has a single built-in mic, and a simpler drum machine which can only play the included preset patterns (you can't create your own patterns). And the Micro BR is not compatible with the BR Rhythm Editor software.

The Micro BR can record from the guitar input and the built-in mic simultaneously. However, the two signals will be blended and recorded in mono. But with the BR-600, the guitar and mic can be simultaneously recorded to two separate tracks which can later be mixed to a stereo pair.