Why only 2 lines in on Mbox etc?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rudy2
  • Start date Start date
R

Rudy2

New member
Howdy,

As I learn more I have a basic question that still bugs me. Regarding live recording, why does the Mbox and cheaper types of portable HD recorders only provide two lines in or out? If you are editing and/or recording a live performance using a PC, wouldn't you want as many individual recorded tracks as possible available for editing? It looks as if the intent is to run all the mics, instruments etc. through a mixer board that can provide two lines out that can then be recorded using the PC (Mbox) or HD recorder. Doesn't this provide a huge restriction if individual live tracks would like to be edited separately after recording?

Also, what is the advantage of a $450 Mbox (with only two XLR's in) over a sound card with eight XLR inputs?

Thanks,
Rudy2
 
When aiming high quality products at a low price market, the manufactures have to make some choices. In the case of the Mbox, its aimed primarily at a) people recording by themselves who don't need lots of inputs and b) people with larger PT rigs that want an inexpensive mobile option.

While USB can handle more than 4 streams (stereo in and out), the Mbox's price was kept low by only including 2 pres and convertors. They're GREAT pres and convertors, too, for the price. Adding more would jack the price up quick and then you'd be in the same price range as the 002 rack. The 002 rack, at 18 in and out, kicks the mbox's butt, so you don't want the 2 products in the same price range.

At least that's one way of looking at it.

-C
 
well said....
And I mentioned just a second ago somewhere else, but you look at a stereo Focusrite preamp by itself, and you should be ready to spend 400-500 bucks alone. And with no software included.

And another advantage of looking at the mbox over something with 8 pres in...is that the one with 8 pres is going to be a hell of a lot more expensive. Buying an mbox keeps the price down, quality still high enough, and it's portable enough for the home musician.
 
Yes but I think the point I was trying make got lost somehow. I wasn't talking specifically about the Mbox but about any device that only allows two lines in. It seems this philosophy is largely restricted to studio recording where one or two tracks are done at a time and is not much use for live events.

And it also seems that there are sound cards that cost far less than the Mbox that can provide 8 MLX connections. This means 8 tracks of simultaneous recording and a better idea for live situations I would think.

I am thinking that with only 2 inputs provided by a recording device the majority of recording sessions done today much be sort of a patch-work affair done in the studio without actually recording an entire ensemble. And you cannot do that live. If I tried a studio session with my folk group with everyone wearing headphones and laying a track at a time it would sound like shit! All the dynamic energy of the group playing together would be lost. Not everyone using digital is recording rock 'n roll but the digital recording industry seems to think in terms of an artificial method of creating music, one track at a time. Sounds like "paint by number" or something.

Am I right or not?

Rudy2
 
yes and no.

first off, what 8 XLR inputs audio interfaces are you looking at that are cheaper than mbox? Any quality devices generally are not cheaper.

you also have to know, that most professional studios do NOT use a device for recording only 2 inputs at a time. Most of them have 24 track tape machines, 48 channel consoles, 96I/O interfaces, etc. The real reason people like to record instruments separately, is not because they like the "fake" sound as you call it. It's more out of the desire to be able to control each instrument as much as possible. If you have the drums bleeding into a guitar track, you can't exactly EQ your guitar without effecting the drums. And most facilities don't have separate room for everyone to stand in. Also, there's the time factor. Say your drummer can only record Wed. but the guitarist cant' make that day. And the bass player is only available every 3rd sunday of the month. Well, why not just record them separate.

This may sound "fake" to you, but it's been done this way for years. And not only in digital. People recorded (and still do) to tape separately. Like I said, it gives the engineer more to work with.

And if you want to record something live with an Mbox or another 2 input interface, it's easy. You can either mix seperate mics on a different mixer and the main outs and plug them into the mbox or use a stereo pair of mics and plug those in. yeah, it's more restrictive in the editing process...but that's how things are. you wanna record more channels, you need to get more inputs. and that's exactly what engineers do.
 
Last edited:
bennychico11
Force of Nature

I do not recall using the word "fake" in any of my posts. Maybe you are a bit sensitive on the subject?

Rudy2
 
not at all sensitive on the matter. i'm just trying to explain it to you. you seem confused as to why engineers like to use multitrack recorders (analog and digital)

and you said "artificial method"...it's just a synonym for fake...same thing. no big deal. :cool:
 
Artificial: Made by human beings rather than occurring in nature. I.E. layering of tracks.

Fake: False or misleading appearance.

See the difference bennychico11?

Rudy2
 
maybe you aren't reading what i wrote. i said it's a synonym for artificial.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=artificial

i don't know why you're still going on about the issue. if you hate multitrack recording, then don't do it. it's that simple. just know that probably almost all the bands you like have recorded separate tracks at one time or another.
 
The least expensive audio interface with 8 XLR inputs I can find is the Aardvark Q10 for $700. Is there something else? For less than half of that I can get something with 2 XLR mic inputs and recording software. That's all I need to stack tracks. Not everyone needs more than two inputs.

What would you do with 8 anyway? kick, snare, l/r overhead, tom1&2, bass, stereo guitar, oops, make that mono guitar, and I guess the keyboard, violin, lead guitar, and vocals will have to wait. 16 channels might do it. And we'd likely be punching in and retracking all over.

2 in is great! If I wanted more I would want 20. That's $2000 in Aardvarks alone!

So why would anyone want just 8?
 
8 would work for me. It seems many people on this forum are geared toward a typical rock band. Most everyone counts off the players like this: kick, tom, bass, lead guitar, etc. My list goes like this: Violin1, violin2, violin3, viola, guitar, bass, pump organ, vocal. See the difference in requirements? With 8 tracks I could record each player live and edit each track individually later on the PC. Matter of fact, most groups I would record are small and require less than 8 tracks to record live. Of course I am a total newbie so I am likely overlooking additional mic needs such as overhead for ambient sound.

It just seems logical to me that the more live tracks you can record the better the editing options are later. Isn't this correct or is two blended tracks as provided by the mixer adequate for most situations? Wouldn't it be difficult to get good results by editing only two tracks from a live performance?

Rudy2
 
SuperSkyrocket said:
Ok, so the Presonus Firepod is $600.
Click to expand...

behringer makes one for 300

true the more microphones you use the more options you have later (unless you run into phasing issues). but at the same time, you have to use what you can afford. not everyone has enough money to spend on a good $1000+ preamp, plus 8 good microphones. some people have to deal with using an affordable 2 input interface with two 57s or something. and if that means NOT recording it live then so be it. and then of course there's the whole "not recording it live" thing that allows even MORE options later than recording live. like i said earlier, there's not much control you have over instruments leaking into another instruments' mic.

and true, some styles of music can get away with recording separate tracks and some have to play all together. jazz groups are a big example of this. that's probably one of the most single styles of music that results in so much more emotion and amazing musicianship when they play together. but there are other groups too. if i was recording a string quartet or a piano/oboe duet...i would have them play together. just because they need to in order to keep in time with eachother. your group would benefit from that probably as well.

like i said, you do what you have to do and what you can afford to do. the end result is all that matters...not how you get there.
 
"behringer makes one for 300"


Any idea where to find info on that Behringer product? I did a web search and could not find a product like that.

Rudy2
 
It's called the ADA8000 and has an ADAT output so you're going to need an ADAT card too and software which brings it up more towards the firepod
 
paddyponchero said:
It's called the ADA8000 and has an ADAT output so you're going to need an ADAT card too and software which brings it up more towards the firepod
Click to expand...

oh yeah...sorry...i forgot that the line outs on the ADA only bring signal from the ADAT in. they should have a switch to let you select if the analog outs take signal from ADAT OR the XLR ins. oh well. :cool:
 
The Behringer unit looks pretty tempting. Since it requires an ADAT PC card to interface it also provides ADAT utility so that a tape machine could easily be integrated as part of the DAW system, correct? Do the other mentioned options such as the Aardvark Q10 or the Presonus Firepod allow allow ADAT recording and data transfer?

Rudy2
 
The Behringer unit really looks pretty interesting. Since it requires an ADAT PC card to interface it can also provide an ADAT utility so that a tape machine could easily be integrated as part of the DAW system, correct? Isn't this an advantage? Do the other mentioned options such as the Aardvark Q10 or the Presonus Firepod allow ADAT data transfer? And ADAT is still the prominent choice for data storage as used for mastering studios correct? Do I know what I am talking about? Not really :o but I am trying!

Rudy2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top