05-20-2020, 11:00 AM
MadMax -
I LOVE your recommendation to the original posted question.
MB/MB32C certainly have the input and routing capabilities to tack on just about any
recorder/editor front end to then use MB/MB32C as the back-end mixer. Total win!
But I do have to laugh at the context of this thread though...
"In the old days" the entirety of the recording portion of the chain was playing through
a console and directing the results to a tape machine. Pure and simple.
Editing was then either a session of punch-ins or razor cuts as needed.
Both of these phases have been implemented, in various ways, by (name your
favorite DAW), each providing features that go far beyond the simplicity of the olden
methods. But, while the essential basic operations have been provided by all DAWS,
it seems to be the enhancements (bells & whistles) that are debated with the most
enthusiasm and call for inclusion into one's favorite DAW.
Regarding the mixing phase of the project, again, the basic and essential functionality
is provided by (just about) every DAW available, but we've become spoiled by
advanced features that, up until a few years ago, were only available on $$$$$$$
hardware. They have nothing to do with the actual ability to complete the mix,
only the easy by which more and more complicated mixes can be accomplished.
I love the fact that Harrison has focused on Mixer portion of the recording-studio-in-a-box
solution. MB/MB32C indeed provide -all- of the essential mixing functionality, with
a familiar user interface AND they continue to enhance this with more and more of those
features that are now "expected" by their customers. I think Harrison is 100% on
the right track (pun intended) as far as the growth and direction of MB/MB32C.
Cheers!
Patrick
I LOVE your recommendation to the original posted question.
MB/MB32C certainly have the input and routing capabilities to tack on just about any
recorder/editor front end to then use MB/MB32C as the back-end mixer. Total win!
But I do have to laugh at the context of this thread though...
"In the old days" the entirety of the recording portion of the chain was playing through
a console and directing the results to a tape machine. Pure and simple.
Editing was then either a session of punch-ins or razor cuts as needed.
Both of these phases have been implemented, in various ways, by (name your
favorite DAW), each providing features that go far beyond the simplicity of the olden
methods. But, while the essential basic operations have been provided by all DAWS,
it seems to be the enhancements (bells & whistles) that are debated with the most
enthusiasm and call for inclusion into one's favorite DAW.
Regarding the mixing phase of the project, again, the basic and essential functionality
is provided by (just about) every DAW available, but we've become spoiled by
advanced features that, up until a few years ago, were only available on $$$$$$$
hardware. They have nothing to do with the actual ability to complete the mix,
only the easy by which more and more complicated mixes can be accomplished.
I love the fact that Harrison has focused on Mixer portion of the recording-studio-in-a-box
solution. MB/MB32C indeed provide -all- of the essential mixing functionality, with
a familiar user interface AND they continue to enhance this with more and more of those
features that are now "expected" by their customers. I think Harrison is 100% on
the right track (pun intended) as far as the growth and direction of MB/MB32C.
Cheers!
Patrick