m box or aka interface
- Thread starter yrs2012
- Start date
Steenamaroo
...
Hi there.
You'd probably see an improvement for a few reasons.
One is that the I/O on soundblaster cards aren't balanced.
If you're suffering from interference or hum, chances are an interface with balanced I/O will help.
Another is that the input on a soundblaster may or may not be an appropriate input for whatever gear you're using.
Sometimes the input is mic level, sometimes it's line...
Some people complain of digital type interference; Computery glitch sounds, or a ticking sound when the mouse is moved.
That can all be attributed to low quality equipment in very close proximity to the computer.
What other gear do you have? Studio monitors? Personally I'd much prefer to plug monitors into good quality balanced line outputs.
Jumping the gun a little, but if your mixer has direct outputs per channel you could get a multichannel interface from tascam and REALLY improve your recordings. You'd have the ability to to 'proper' mixing and edit individual tracks after the recording.
Depending how much you rely on live mixing capability, you could bypass the mixer altogether!
Is your focus on 'studio' recording (editing/mixing/polishing), or on capturing a live performance?
Are you happy with your results?
You'd probably see an improvement for a few reasons.
One is that the I/O on soundblaster cards aren't balanced.
If you're suffering from interference or hum, chances are an interface with balanced I/O will help.
Another is that the input on a soundblaster may or may not be an appropriate input for whatever gear you're using.
Sometimes the input is mic level, sometimes it's line...
Some people complain of digital type interference; Computery glitch sounds, or a ticking sound when the mouse is moved.
That can all be attributed to low quality equipment in very close proximity to the computer.
What other gear do you have? Studio monitors? Personally I'd much prefer to plug monitors into good quality balanced line outputs.
Jumping the gun a little, but if your mixer has direct outputs per channel you could get a multichannel interface from tascam and REALLY improve your recordings. You'd have the ability to to 'proper' mixing and edit individual tracks after the recording.
Depending how much you rely on live mixing capability, you could bypass the mixer altogether!
Is your focus on 'studio' recording (editing/mixing/polishing), or on capturing a live performance?
Are you happy with your results?
Im using a old anaolg mixing console a 1982 12 channel stuido master channel yes they do have direct out puts per channel but i thought you woul dhave to hook th emain out to the line in or put the main out into the mbox. but are you also saying that there is an interface for recording that I could do live rcording and it could record each track seprate ? by the wa ythe moniters are Bose 802 and Im wanting the best sound for my recording studio I was hoping to record it all live like Sun Records alway did is that possible?
Steenamaroo
...
Ok, thanks for the extra info.
If you're aiming high and the ultimate goal is some level of 'studio recording', I'd definitely move away from sound baster.
There are three basic ways to approach this.
1:
Use a mixer with a simple interface like the mbox.
Hook the mixer main outputs to mbox line inputs.
This will record all your channels down to stereo, so you more or less have to get everything right on the night.
There's no real scope for tweaking afterwards.
2:
Use your mixer with a multi channel interface. (Google echo audiofire 12 as an example).
This would give you 12 discreet simultaneous recordings, assuming your mixer has 12 direct outputs.
That may or may not be enough to cover a full live band, but you could certainly track drums, bass and guitars 'live' then over dub vocals and leads etc.
3:
Just bypass the whole mixer idea and get a multichannel interface with mic preamps built in.
Same as no:2 but obviously you no longer have faders and whatever the mixer offers.
In my opinion this is not really a sacrifice because you still have all the tools at your fingertips in your software.
Hope that's useful to you.
If you're aiming high and the ultimate goal is some level of 'studio recording', I'd definitely move away from sound baster.
There are three basic ways to approach this.
1:
Use a mixer with a simple interface like the mbox.
Hook the mixer main outputs to mbox line inputs.
This will record all your channels down to stereo, so you more or less have to get everything right on the night.
There's no real scope for tweaking afterwards.
2:
Use your mixer with a multi channel interface. (Google echo audiofire 12 as an example).
This would give you 12 discreet simultaneous recordings, assuming your mixer has 12 direct outputs.
That may or may not be enough to cover a full live band, but you could certainly track drums, bass and guitars 'live' then over dub vocals and leads etc.
3:
Just bypass the whole mixer idea and get a multichannel interface with mic preamps built in.
Same as no:2 but obviously you no longer have faders and whatever the mixer offers.
In my opinion this is not really a sacrifice because you still have all the tools at your fingertips in your software.
Hope that's useful to you.