If you want to record each track of the OT into a different track of the BB? Yes. You’d just set 8 tracks of the BB to all record from input 1, arm just the first one on the BB, solo just the first one on the OT, record, increment, and repeat.
If want to record each track of the OT into the same track of the BB? No. Each recording would be a different, individual “take”, and you could see them all and potentially load them into different BB tracks if you want. But you can only have one active take that plays back per track.
Afaik, each input can only be listened to by one track at a time. In that case, you would just need to switch the input to a new track after every take.
Can the Bluebox playback more than 6 stereo files?
I’ve been poking at the idea of building a breakout box for my Blue box, to make integration a little easier without adding too much to the size. It’s going to be a while before it’d be anything like ready, but I’m curious if folks would be interested in a small run of them?
Each input would have an adapter from two mono TRS 1/4" jacks, probably run through a switchable transformer pair to allow balanced inputs and hum management for tight setups, and also a pair of (pre-gain, obviously) insert sends and returns, half-normaled, for a bluebox-sized patchbay. Might or might not have it set up with eighth inch jacks, patchulator-style for actual patching — that would be even more convenient, but we’ll see what the space cost looks like. Probably another pair of transformers on the effect return. Same structure on the outputs (same board even, if we can get away with it). Add midi TRS to DIN adapters, a USB power isolator, and a DC USB power supply for folks with e.g. clean 12V pedalboard power but no USB, and we’ve got everything needed to integrate it into most setups. I might also put a USB passthrough port for the midi device side, just for wiring convenience, although I’d be tempted to integrate one of the Sevilla Soft USB to USB adapters so the Bluebox could integrate more easily with USB midi host router devices like the Bome or MRCC.
Not sure what the cost would look like right now. I’d probably look at a run of boards with a BOM and plans for a laser cut case, though, rather than built devices, although the guy that I’m working with for the board designs might be up for building a few of them for folks.
you would just need to switch the input to a new track after every take
Good point! Yes, sorry for the unclear instructions.
Can the Bluebox playback more than 6 stereo files?
Yup. In fact, the “8trk demo” factory project is all stereo files. I think you could, in theory, go all the way up to 12 — but my SD card is hinky enough that things start to glitch out even around 5, so I can’t speak to reliability.
Also, all tracks 7–12 only visually display mono levels. So clearly these were meant for mono mixing (though they play back in stereo and register at the master levels as stereo).
So I don’t know that I’d suggest, say, panning stereo files on any track past 6. But the BB does its best to handle whatever you throw at it within limits of card speed and processing power. Maybe someone with an expensive pro streaming card could give it a shot?
I just tested on 12 (stereo) tracks with a standard* SD card and it seems to work fine. Panning works even if the track is only displaying mono levels (which is dependent on if the track is set to listen to a stereo pair or not). Pretty cool!
An interesting use case for this box, imo, is to load stems (up to 12!) on it and use it as a portable mixing/mastering solution. Much more feasible with the most recent update providing punch in/out points.
*Kingston Canvas Select Plus: Class 10 UHS-I speeds up to 100MB/s^2
Yes! Though I clearly need a better card I’m jumping on that Kingston.
Punch in/out has been a game changer for me. As has pre-fader recording. It’s really transformed my thinking about it from a glorified field recorder that I’d use to capture stuff to mix later into the thing I’d actually use to do that later mix. I still find myself realizing “oh, I can use the BB for that now” on a regular basis. I need to really sit down with it for, like, a week and get reacquainted.
I use mine as a glorified patch bay, moving many sources to a SSL SiX with EQ and FX. I haven’t touched the recording capabilities of the Bluebox yet, but I as a begin to create more serious tracks I can see it offering something valuable to the workflow.
Yeah, I’m thinking now, you could load 6 stereo stems on the Bluebox and then live record/pass-thru 6 more stereo sources.
Only kinda like a looper, mostly because it doesn’t loop.
But you can play back recorded tracks from the beginning (or from a particular bar, using the latest v1.1.1beta firmware), then hit stop to jump back, then play again.
Maybe you could fake looping using something that transmitted the proper MIDI transport commands at the right time? ¯\(ツ)/¯
First, this is a fantastic Idea that would pop the Bluebox into a whole other category (Blubox Pro if you will), and make it a viable option for an additional set of users.
Adding balancing transformers on the inputs is nice but those tend to either be heavy and expensive or sound like shit. Basically it’s like a 12 channel passive DI just for inputs, and if you want balance outs, which you might as well and a balanced insert point, as you suggest, you are looking at a big heavy box full of transformers which may well cost more than the Bluebox. Maybe just the full size connectors without adding the balanced signal would be less “Pro” but more viable.
Are you thinking of this from a business perspective at all?
The goal with the transformers is exactly that — to have the option for passive DIs on every channel when needed. And yes, I know the transformers may not be something all users want — if I was thinking commercial, they definitely wouldn’t be on the table, but for DIY, they might make sense.
One option is to see if we can lay the boards out so the transformers are an optional part, possibly even on a piece of board that can be snapped off for a smaller profile if folks don’t want them. That said, I’ve done some super rough layouts (just looking at part sizing right now) and I don’t think you’d actually save that much volume without them, especially with the 1/8" patchbay version.
Since this is now in the a-la-cart phase, and as a hypothetical buyer of this Blubox-Pro Connectivity SideCcar, then I would want this box to have 2 channels of mic-preamplification (nothing fancy), a D-Sub or other multi-pin breakout cable to connect to the Blue-Box and an option for a fully built unit as I would personally not take on the DIY build.
Huh. DSub wouldn’t work unless you share a ground pin between all of the audio connectors — you’re at 21 pins just for 9 unbalanced stereo channels plus power and 2x grounds— and even then you’d only be able to fit USB host, not TRS midi. It’d be convenient, yes, but the trade-off of needing a completely custom cable might run counter to goal of making the Bluebox simpler to build into a reliable high-density setup. I get the desire for preamps, but I think that’s a no too — something like the Rolls MP13 already serves that purpose quite well, and designing and building a mic preamp would make the build notably more complex. It’s intentional right now that all the audio components are entirely passive and the only powered bits are either the power supply (very simple stock parts) or the USB-USB board (integrating a pre-built component) — it’s designed to be as simple to build as possible.
As far as the build goes, the whole thing should be through-hole and about as easy as it gets, but I understand still not wanting to do it. That said, there are a bunch of builders out there who will do that kind of thing relatively cheaply — that’s how I got my Midiphy Loops and my Preenfm3. Again, logistics for bringing it into the world vs. making it the Cadillac version. Good ideas, though, definitely.
I guess that would be 1010 Music building an Actual Bluebox pro with your added features in one box.
It is nice though to be active and constructive and not just bitch on the forum about the features we feel we “deserved”. Once you start looking at real world limitations and solutions (even without trying to make a profit) you realize just how admirable some products really are, especially from tiny companies like 1010.
Yup! Honestly, while there are software features I’d like, the only hardware things I can see wanting here are maybe a bit more CPU and one more input and output, and I know the latter is just me being greedy — it can do everything I want it to without them. I actually don’t think that building the stuff the breakout box will have in would have been the right call, because while it will be pretty small, we’re still talking something like 280x120x90mm — there’s only so close you can space 1/4" jacks and have them be functional. At that size, the Bluebox would have been a totally different product, not nearly as useful for a lot of use cases.
I’m jumping on that Kingston.