vanceen
Personally, I don't understand the point of control surfaces. Why do I need motorized faders when I can create envelopes with so much more precision? What functions can a control surface perform that can't be easily performed with envelopes and automation?
 
I don't mean to be dismissive; perhaps I'm missing something. But I would much rather spend the money on a good microphone.
 
EDIT: I note that some of you mention live situations. I see how that could be more efficient.
 

real faders are real faders. so for some people (like me) it's all about the experience to use something that makes it feel more like a mix desk, even if it just produces 0s and 1s, but it's different to reach for a knob to adjust pan right away rather than walk the mouse across the screen to find a tiny knob to do likewise.
 
But you are right to invest in good microphone(s) first ... I 'add also good monitoring and acoustic treatment before a control surface ...
 
But no use for live situations, these things are not build for the road.

Much of what I think about it has already been said, but does using any of this hardware make the recording better and the sound better? I thought one of the reasons we went to digital was to get rid of all those expensive and clunky mixing boards and other outboard gear. I've got a good mixing board right there on the GUI. I've had some of those pretty nice 4 channel boards when I had switched over to digital, but rarely did I see them improve my recordings or flexibility.
 
What practical advantage does having anything but the mixer on the GUI offer for a home studio? Is it that many people from analog just like the feel and interaction with a mixing board rather than a mouse and the GUI? I want my system as simple, concise, and mobile as possible. I assume that if it made recording easier or better that the software makers would soon find a way to match the quality and utility.