need for motorized faders

Why is it really needed to have motorized faders if n-track will save those motions on the virtual board…wouldn’t you be able to then easily adjust the real faders to reflect the positions on the virtual ones on n-track? Other than the obvious “want” factor are we really losing that much by using a control surface W/O motors?
Cheers

it’s a throw back to non computerized recording, where the motorized faders reflected the movements and fades and such for the engineer. you’re right. it’s the same thing as the faders on the computer, but hey, they are neat :)

Yeah they are cool and I’ll probably go with the behringer bcf2000 anyway, it also has the b4 ni program…:blues:

If used for controlling tonebars on an organ like B4, motorized would be a big benefit – so when you grab a bunch and slide them, they take immediate effect rather than waiting until they meet up with the “actual” value, or worse, cause the sound to jump to the current location for each fader/drawbar.

I wish someone made motorized drawbars! But even the Hammond didn’t work this way. If you were using a preset, the drawbars would do nothing. You had to hit the highest preset key to enable the drawbars (more or less).

Well, I know it’s sacrelige to say it, but motorized drawbars would be an improvement on the original Hammond. :open_mouth:

Cruiser,

I’m looking at getting a Behringer BCF2000, and I’ll explain why I’m interested in a fader pack.

Yes, drawing envelopes is certainly a more accurate way of engineering the mix with respect to the levels between your tracks and for fades and such, and I will continue to use those features for final mixes and for detail work, but for me having a control surface will save time.

As it stands, without a control surface, when I want to experiment with different eq, level, pan and aux send settings for myself and for any artists listening in there is a lot of mousing around. This is a completely functional and respectable way to change settings, but a control surface will afford me much quicker and simultaneous access to multiple functions over a single mouse pointer. Being able to control multiple functions at once is important to me as an engineer. For me and others, an important part of mixing is adjusting for the way one source effects another. I find that having to move between functions of tracks one at a time isn’t quick enough for my ears when I’m trying to get two or more tracks to play ball nicely with each other in the mix. This doesn’t mean that everybody’s ears work that way. I’m just a bit old-school I think and want that quicker access and comfort of having many funtions at my fingertips. Its nothing more than one type of tool. Its not necessary or absolute.

The motorized fader bit is another convenience feature in my mind as I imagine I would get impatient synchronizing my faders every time I switch bank. For example, with a song of 16 tracks and only 8 faders, when switching between controlling tracks 1-8 vs. 9-16 the motorized faders snap to the appropriate positions. Non-motorized faders require stopping playback and linking the physical fader to the virtual fader using a feedback mechanism usually involving LED’s on the control surface that light appropriately when the physical fader is in the same position as the virtual fader. This is how it is with a control surface such as the Tascam US-428. Practical yes in terms of cost, but frustrating if you cannot stack your tracks in a way that avoids frequent bank-switching. The BCF2000 has brought motorized faders into my budget range, and I plan on taking advantage of that.

SO…at the end of the day its personal preference and its just another tool that exists for the purpose of satisfying those many and varied preferences.

Those are my thoughts on the matter.