![]() | All Advertisers |
| |||||||
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Mbox 2 Convertors vs Mbox, 002, Maudio? | composer | Low End Theory | 6 | 28th December 2007 12:05 AM |
| Mbox and latency | ILLSON | Low End Theory | 27 | 8th January 2007 08:25 PM |
| Mbox 2 v.s. Mbox Pro | Angel_Lopez | Rap + Hip Hop engineering & production | 1 | 19th October 2006 03:34 AM |
| Mbox- less latency with a Mac? | Pointbreakd | Music computers | 1 | 10th February 2006 11:25 PM |
| MBOX and 164 latency | kelly pettit | So much gear, so little time! | 1 | 13th April 2005 08:26 AM |
![]() |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
| | #1 |
| Gear nut Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 121
| DigiDesign Mbox II Pro vs Mbox II or Mbox I (latency, quality etc) Hello, I have a recording studio but I need to be able to sometimes take something with me on the road or home or on a trip to do some work. Since I am a ProTools user and DigiDesign finally has something that will open my 88.2/96 sessions, I was wondering if any of you can share some real world experiences about the Mbox II Pro. Aside from the obvious differences that you can read on the website, are there differences in the quality of sound between an Mbox II Pro and the Mbox II and I? Most importantly, it's FireWire, does that mean less/decent latency? I used an Mbox I (usb) on a trip once and I was recording something and it was terrible. It made it hard to record rhythm-sensitive material for the musician than was using headphones. Any advice would be great. Thanks |
| | |
| | #2 |
| Gear interested | I havn't used the MBox 2 line yet, but to my understanding, all three (Pro, standard and Mini) have zero-latency. It doesn't have anything to do with the USB vs. FireWire, but rather they have a built in mixer like the 002. The reason the Pro would have firewire is just because it has more ins/outs, it needs the higher bandwidth over the USB 1.1. |
| | |
| | #3 | |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,652
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #4 |
| Gear nut Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 121
| how LL is it though? compared to an HD system... can one record rhythm-sensitive material on it? |
| | |
| | #5 | |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,652
| Quote:
Not as quick but decent. The advantage of LLM over the mix knob is you hear your other recorded material as well 'in sync' with your input, just without plug-ins. in the case of whether you can record rhythm-sensitive material, I think it depends on the player. it can be done, I've done it, but you have to think ahead just a *touch* ... | |
| | |
| | #6 |
| Gear nut Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 121
| so with an Mbox 2 Pro I won't be able to record, say, a guitar with AmpliTube plug ins for distortion or something like that? That's what I was doing with Mbox I and the latency was horrible... my player was having a real hard time |
| | |
| | #7 |
| Lives for gear Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: London, UK
Posts: 1,652
| it'll be a bit better than with the original Mbox simply due to the fact that it's firewire and not USB. but it won't be perfect, you won't be able to use 'low-latency monitoring' as that disables plug-ins. it depends how good your guitarist is I guess, and how low you can get your buffer. |
| | |
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
| |