When do you go "into the box"?

Bristol_Jonesey
It also depends on your competence as an engineer.
 
Do you have the confidence/ability to dial in the sounds you want on the way into your DAW?
 
Personally I prefer the flexibility of simply capturing the cleanest possible signal so I can mangle it the way I want afterwards

LOL. I wouldn't have used those words but you captured what I was trying to say.

I'm always wary of too much processing on the way in, mainly because I'm too afraid I'll screw something up. But I've been in enough of these situations to say that a good quality hardware compressor can generally leave the signal sounding much cleaner with a lot more compression than a software equivalent. So you can get away with using more compression and therefore end up with better usable material (less noise and less chance of clipping).

Hi schwa,
I use hardware on the way into the converters regularly, but not always and for specific reasons. Here's how I think of it - I have a bunch of pretty nice hardware, and I like to use it. I also have pretty nice converters (most of them out there are pretty good these days) and so the audio difference between using hardware after tracking or on the way in is essentially negligible. I still do it though, and here's why:
 
1 - Speed. I have some clients that I know are going to have specific things done to their tracks, so I may as well just get them done from the outset. A couple examples: There's one singer that I record pretty regularly. He's a folk/Americana guy, deep voice but needs a little brightness. I know that, come hell or high water, I'm going to push his vox tracks through my TLA-100, cut below about 70, shelf at 120 and drop 2db, and do a wide Q 2db bump at 3.2. Every time. Since I know that, why not just do it on the way in and move on? One more example, female BGV for a band I record. She's gonna come in on my Beezneez (the 87 gets a bit brittle on her), probably on the tube pres since the Great Rivers get a bit honky for her, and I'm gonna squish the dynamcs hard with either an 1176 or a Distressor and make a couple specific eq moves (don't remember what they are right now, I'd have to check their session sheet). Again, every time (at least on her BGV tracks). Doing that stuff on the way in just saves me steps.
 
2 - Performance - Some performers get different outcomes when tracking through comps and EQ's. Another example - I have one female singer, BIG voice, super dynamic, lots of that "whiskey and cigarettes" thing. Running her through the 1176 when tracking changes her performance dramatically, particularly on the softer chest voice parts. When she feels like that part of her voice has more power, stability, and presence she uses it more, and that's a really good thing for her. The 1176 really helps out with that, and since I'm gonna use it anyway, it just makes sense to do it on the way in.
 
3 - Sonar's E.I. plugin. Sonars External Insert plugin is good, and relatively solid, but there are some long-standing issues with it that make me, when possible, shy away from it. Some examples, the soloing behavior on buses, the fact that it consumes stereo I/O pairs on mono effects, no automatic latency recalculation on buffer size changes, and (this may just be my system) it causes weird behavior when count-in is enabled. Now, don't get the wrong impression here - I use it all the time and generally like it, but that stuff does change how I interact with it.
 
All that said, this is just the way I do it, other folks are different and get good results too. Hell, it's not all that  uncommon for me to stay in the box, even with all the crap I have. It's kind of like asking me if I like my Taylor or my Martin better...it just depends on what I'm doing, how I want it to sound, and what mood I'm in.
 
Hope that helps,
Dean
 
 
EDIT - +1000 for what AT said. As usual, he beat me to it and said it better :)

I agree with what most have said in that you just want the cleanest raw material you can get to 'tape'. That said,  a really good quality signal path into the box is a huge  part of that process.  I suggest spending all you can afford on a channel strip to achieve that. There are many budget options, but my personal goto favourite is the not quite so budget Avalon 737 - worth every cent. Mine is about 20 years old, but they still sell exactly the  same unit.
 
In my rambling statically insignificant experience it seems that the only people who rubbish a really good quality hardware pre-amp and compressor are those that have never used one:)
 
 

I never get out.
 

Thanks for all of the input.  Lots of nuanced comments to consider, but also common considerations that I was already aware of to a degree. 
 
My interface does not have integrated preamps, but I have other devices that do.  I even have a budget dedicated preamp that wasn't a big improvement to the integrated pres I have used.  The sky is virtually the limit is seems when it comes to mic preamp prices, but I am glad I made the modest investment in my SSL quad pre.  I bought it used, so the pain was even lighter.  But now I am able to record a healthy clean signal from any of my mics or instruments.  (This has sometimes been a challenge in the past). 
 
Others have also said that there's nothing wrong with a little EQ or compression on the way in, especially if you're familiar with the source.  I think I'll continue to experiment with this as my resources allow, but it's ok to work inside the box where my toolkit is bigger right now.

@Kev999: If hardware gates misfire, the take is lost.
I use gate (well, expander) plugs in post-processing, and do the sections that fail to trigger properly manually.
 
@schwa: I have a Mackie 1202 VLZ4 which I connect directly to the four line-ins of my interface (Tascam US1800).
 
I add in an Alesis Nanoverb should the artist need a confidence reverb.
 
The signal that goes to the interface is taken directly from the insert jacks, so directly after the input gain. No EQ nor reverb lands on the recording. Bone-dry. 
 
This way I can leave it up to the artist to set their own headphone level, EQ and reverb. Just as long as they don't touch the input gain!
 
The VLZ4 preamps are superb. They are quieter than the self-noise of my Neumann TLM103.
 
I also have a bunch of modified Behringer mini mixers (signal tapped after the input gain) for less critical stuff, like guitar amps and drums.

jpetersen
@Kev999: If hardware gates misfire, the take is lost.
I use gate (well, expander) plugs in post-processing, and do the sections that fail to trigger properly manually.
 
@schwa: I have a Mackie 1202 VLZ4 which I connect directly to the four line-ins of my interface (Tascam US1800).
 
I add in an Alesis Nanoverb should the artist need a confidence reverb.
 
The signal that goes to the interface is taken directly from the insert jacks, so directly after the input gain. No EQ nor reverb lands on the recording. Bone-dry. 
 
This way I can leave it up to the artist to set their own headphone level, EQ and reverb. Just as long as they don't touch the input gain!
 
The VLZ4 preamps are superb. They are quieter than the self-noise of my Neumann TLM103.
 
I also have a bunch of modified Behringer mini mixers (signal tapped after the input gain) for less critical stuff, like guitar amps and drums.

I'm actually aware of the VLZ4 preamps and like them.  I have the smaller 8 channel VLZ4 mixer which I use with a separate iPad recording setup. 
 
I use the VLZ4 with a Nanoverb (in the FX bus) and an RNC in the insert.  All this goes into a Focusrite iPad dock, and is a solid upgrade from the included preamps and the Behringer mixer that preceded it.  The VLZ4/RNC/Nanoverb front end is an awesome solution - flexible and a bargain.
 
I might have decided to use the Mackie in both setups, but I am lazy and dislike re-plumbing.
 
 

Anderton
Sound on Sound magazine did a very interesting preamp "shootout" a few years back of multiple preamps at various price points. It involved blind testing so no one could think one logo sounded better than another logo (oops, I mean "preamp"). IIRC the hands-down winner was an ART preamp that cost $149 or something like that.
 
This isn't to say a quality preamp can't make an audible improvement difference. I bought a Radial Engineering direct box because the minute I plugged in my guitar, it delivered every nuance of the pickups. However, I think in many cases what causes someone to like one preamp over another is the presence of an input transformer. A truly high-quality input transformer is like a "magic component" that serves as a signal processor...similarly to how tubes or tape process the sound in a way people find desirable.
 
Back in the early days of digital I was visiting Wendy Carlos and she had one of those ancient Akai MG1212 digital recorders. I had never thought they sounded particularly good, but her studio sounded great. I asked her whether she'd replaced the electronics or something. She said no, but she had transformers in her mixer, which she had done on purpose for the sonic benefits. There was no question it made a difference. Wendy, being effing brilliant, then launched into a technical discussion of why transformers were so helpful in improving the sonics of digital.
 
Interestingly enough when SONAR introduced Console Emulation, my first reaction was "snake oil." I figured they just introduced a little bit of slightly different distortion in each channel so it would have a perceived wider soundstage and some non-linearities. I was very surprised after testing to find that there was a good input transformer emulation as well. You can hear this for yourself - crank up the drive all the way with bass. It's one of my favorite "effects" for bass, just as it was back in the day when I was plugging basses into DIs in analog studios.
 
 

I read that SOS article before I got my SSL, partially because it was highlighted in my research into the SSL unit itself.  Its a good read, I learned a few things from it. 
 
One of the things "missing" from that article was that all of the preamps were fed a healthy input, which is where mic preamps seem to fall down in my (limited) experience.  Many of the pres I have used sound fine up to about noon on the dial, but not so much after. 
 
My SSL unit came in "2nd"to the ($250) ART unit in the article, which contributed to my decision to pick it up.  I also bought it used @ about 50% of retail (minty).  The SSL isn't regarded as the best ever, I might have picked an API or Focusrite (or ART!), but sometimes you pick the deal at hand.
 
In practice, it seems the thing I like best is that the SSL has 75Db of gain, which seems higher than some.  It lets me keep even low gain (SC guitars, SM7) inputs healthy and under noon.  I don't know if it has an input transformer, and haven't experimented with the higher gain "character" settings yet.
 
I'm also a bit suspicious of the console emulation feature, I have some mixes pending, and I'm going to compare  them with it turned on and off.

Kev999

jpetersen
@Kev999: If hardware gates misfire, the take is lost.
 

 
I'm not sure what you mean. How can a gate misfire?

By not opening when it should, maybe the soft start or ending of a word etc.

chuckebaby
Without high jacking this thread I am curious about how many left handed people use their mouse with their right hand or is it only me ? It came out of necessity more than habit.

Chuck,
I'm the most left-handed person I've ever met!!! I couldn't even pick up a mouse with my right hand, nonetheless use it that way!

Bristol_Jonesey

Sanderxpander

Kev999

jpetersen
@Kev999: If hardware gates misfire, the take is lost.

I'm not sure what you mean. How can a gate misfire?

By not opening when it should, maybe the soft start or ending of a word etc.

Yes or closing too early when the Hold parameter isn't set correctly.
I cannot envisage a scenario when I would employ a hardware gate prior to getting the signal into SONAR.
You run the risk of ruining the take and gain nothing that cannot done afterwards when mixing

 
I'm always careful with the settings to avoid such occurrences.