Anyone tried MBox?

Excellent,but as far as i know,it works only with pro tools(i dont think it is supported by cubase,and other s......but not sure 100%).
If you use pro-tools,You cant make a better choice at that price range.
 
It is only Pro-tools and is bundled with Pro-tools LE software. It has excellent general purpose pre-amps for an interface at its price point. It's only problem is that it has quite high latency compared to other USB audio interfaces. Somewhat difficult if you plan to use effects in real-time. I don't own one.. but I worked in retail and sold an awful lot of them.
 
BTW... I just read a review of the DIgidesign MBox that clearly suggests that that unit is NOT for the kind of home recording most of us do. If you overdub -- you probably should not consider the Digi MBox, since it cannot align direct monitored incoming tracks with prerecorded tracks according to the review in Electronic Musician as well as word of mouth from MBox users on this board.

Here's a thread on just that topic:
https://www.futureproducers.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22267

[writer's note after the fact: I did some digging and found that you can monitor with zero latency -- but each new track must be manually shifted by the conversion (not the much longer monitoring latency) latency* offset amount after recording it and before recording subsequent tracks. There is, apparently, no latency offset functionality in Pro Tools. (!) That seems quite odd to this 6 year veteran of PC based HD recording... and selling the Mbox as a "studio-in-a-box" when it requires this klugey workaround for any overdubbing is a stretch, it seems to me.]


*This conversion latency is 164 samples, according to most of what I read, which, at 44.1 kHz works out to just under 4 ms. This is a short enough amount of time that it is probably unnoticeable to most folks... but if timing cues are taken from subsequent tracks and not the very first -- this unadjusted amount could "add up" -- in a highly unlikely worst case scenario of a 16 track project where timing cues were taken from the most recently recorded track each time a new track was recorded, you could end up with a timing gap over 50 ms between the first track and the last. So, it is clearly appropriate to take Digi's recommended solution and manually shift ("nudge") each track 164 samples toward the beginning of the project after recording it and before recording subsequent tracks.
 
Last edited:
theblue1 said:
BTW... I just read a review of the DIgidesign MBox that clearly suggests that that unit is NOT for the kind of home recording most of us do. If you overdub -- you probably should not consider the Digi MBox, since it cannot align direct monitored incoming tracks with prerecorded tracks according to the review in Electronic Musician as well as word of mouth from MBox users on this board.

Here's a thread on just that topic:
https://www.futureproducers.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=22267

[writer's note after the fact: I did some digging and found that you can monitor with zero latency -- but each new track must be manually shifted by the latency offset amount after recording it and before recording subsequent tracks. There is, apparently, no latency offset functionality in Pro Tools. (!) That seems quite odd to this 6 year veteran of PC based HD recording... and selling the Mbox as a "studio-in-a-box" when it requires this klugey workaround for any overdubbing is a stretch, it seems to me.]
Click to expand...


really? that is bizarre. Although I hate to say I'm not surprised. I mean, don't get me wrong, a full Pro-tools HD system is powerful no doubt, but Pro-tools LE is (sigh) a mere toy. It really does not stack up against Logic or Cubase (especially SX... despite its many bugs). The digi002 though I'll admit is enticing.

I think digi should rethink the whole idea of pro-tools le and come out with a newer product that perhaps is not in the pro-tools line. (gasp)... we all know that they wouldn't do that though.. from a buisness standpoint, that's suicide. They have a well known name and they should milk it for what its worth. Just a shame though that people buy it expecting the creme de la creme, and get a beginner level system. Really just a shame.
 
Yeah... I feel confident you'd never hear the end of it if a PC-based DAW tried to get away with something like that!

I've been doing DAW work in Cakewalk (and now Sonar) since '96 and (as far as I can remember) it's always had a diagnostic mode where it would suss out your sound card's latency and performance issues and set a default latency offset and then handle everything from there on out... so multitrack recording on CW was never much different than recording on my old ADATs or on my analog tape machines before that.

I was talking to one of my Pro Tools pals earlier today (in person -- yes I actually have a life away from this board) and he reminded me that if you want to use anything above the free Pro Tools software you have to buy into their hardware platforms.

As someone who trained and worked as an engineer/producer I've always felt like I should get 'up to speed' with PT... but I've been frustrated by the lack of support for contemporary PC OS's from PT Free (it stopped at Win ME)

What's interesting is that many PT users aren't aware of the features and differences offered by other platforms and software.
 
:bigeyes:

finally, someone else who does their work with a Cakewalk product. Sonar/HomeStudio 2002 is severely under-rated

= chiisu
 
Not too underrated... Electronic Musician split their sequencer of the year award last year between Digital Performer 3 and Sonar 2 XL. (Now, this years Best of Year sequencer went to Cubase SX... and it does look pretty cool.)

I really like Sonar. It's more oriented to project studios and music production rather than foley, etc, (and has no direct support for surround at this time) but that said I find it does everything I need and a lot more and usually does it gracefully and efficiently (since I'm at the back end of my PC cycle with a P3-500 that counts right at the moment... by mid-2003 I'll have built my next machine but right now being able to squeeze 20 tracks or so with some FX out of my machine keeps me content.)
 
Last edited:
I'm also running a P3-500 :D i'm not going to upgrade until 3ghz chips come down in price. even then i know i will stay with Sonar. the sound quality has been nothing but astonishing for me(using M-Audio Delta 44), and editing midi is easy. At first I didn't like the plain look of Sonar compared to Cubase SX, but now I don't mind it too much....

= chiisu
 
Well... since the first desktop computer I used was a 4.77 mHz (that's mega -- not giga) 8088, 512 kB (that's k not m) of 8 bit RAM, sitting on a 10 mB HD (we don't have to do that again, do we? :D ) I have a healthy respect for lean code and frill-less computing.

I know that Cubase has pioneered some very powerful features over the years and certainly Cubase SX looks pretty darn good featurewise but I've never been able to shake the feeling that it somehow looked too good on the screen -- guilty of profligacy with eternally-precious computer resources. (No matter how beefy my computer, I kinda feel like if there's a slider with "Cool Graphics" on one end and "Lots of Plug-ins and Tracks" on the other, you'll find mine set to "Lots of plug-ins"...)

;)

[Hey chiisu... I have to admit that seeing 'our' CPU and clock speed in your post kind of shocked me a little and made me think: how did the hot rod I built at Christmas 2000 turn into a kind of threshold of bare respectability. I realized that when I talk to someone who has a machine even a little slower than mine I think: you poor, unfortunate, sob, there but for the grace of heaven, etc. But, honestly, my computer still feels fast to me, mostly. It's a very fast and well maintained P3-500. I like to think of it as a smooth running older sports car.

But, of course, it's job # 1 where I finally see my box's lack of horsepower. Load up a bunch of tracks and throw on a bunch of fx and, well, it's the same old story... but at least that augurs well for really making a 2 box lifestyle a reality this time when I build my next one -- with audio work on the new machine and business and browsing, as database and web work probably on this machine (but it's always tempting to do graphics on the hotter machine).

Anybody use monitor switches (to share a monitor between boxes? I want to get rid of these things not propagate them.)
 
Last edited:
my computer runs pretty well, esp. w/ DirectX 9 and new nVidia drivers. I only wish I had more RAM, but otherwise I'll be able to get about 1 more year out of this box, then I'll have to upgrade. I would like to keep this one, but I just don't have the room for 2 towers in my room :( And honestly, once you upgrade you'll rarely use the older box anyways. As far as sharing a monitor, I know large CRT's sometimes have 2 inputs, not sure about flat screens...

= chiisu
 
They have switcher boxes that can swith a monitor, mouse and keyboard between two cpus... I think that'd be the way to go for me.

OTOH... you're right. Every time I've brought a new machine on line I've said I'd only keep audio stuff on it... but then it's like, well I have to have a browser and then it's like, well if I have a browser I might as well have my graphics and web design stuff on... and then the database design and everything else follows on... and before I now it the old machine is just sitting there dark for weeks or months at a time.

Happy Holidays to all!
 
yep. though i won't have much of a system left, since i'm gonna rip out the audio cards, video card, and hard drive to put in the new system....

= chiisu
 
I'm rolling around a bunch of ideas about what to do about my next machine...

I keep changing my mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top