Q for recording folks: Mbox

[Jenn]

Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home recording? Thoughts
and impressions? Value vs. quality?

TIA

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Soundhaspriority" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home recording? Thoughts
> > and impressions? Value vs. quality?
> >
> > TIA
>
> Jenn, I haven't used it, but the specifications,
> http://digidesign.com/index.cfm?navid=29&langid=100&itemid=4893 , are
> somewhat unexceptional. The dynamic range is given as 106dB, which is on the
> low end, and it doesn't sample above 48 kHz, which limits production of
> "hidef" audio. B&H has it for $449, but an AudioFire 4 , see
> http://echoaudio.com/Products/FireWire/
> and
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487657-REG/Echo_AUDIOFIRE4_AudioFire4_Fi
> reWire_Audio_Interface.html ,
> beats it on all levels for $299: 112 dB dynamic range, and sampling to
> 96kHz, which you could use to produce DVD-A hidef recordings.
>
> It appears to me that with respect to the value offered, Digidesign is
> exploiting the sales lock-in of the device as a ProTools dongle. There are
> better values out there.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Thanks. Excellent food for thought. The advantage of Pro Tools is that
I could take my files to the college for final mixing, but I'm not sure
that's worth it.

Thanks again.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in
message


> Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home
> recording? Thoughts and impressions? Value vs. quality?

Zillions of people have MBoxes at home. I've got a client that has one.

Bob nailed it. The MBox line of hardware spends a lot of time riding on the
ample shirtails of Pro Tools software.

Like many types of product that partially sells based on its reputation, you
pay a premium for your place in the universe of that reputation.

I have a client that runs a MBox, and one of the issues he has is that the
software supports only a limited selection of hardware devices. You pretty
much have to be running that qualifiying hardware to use Pro Tools.

Another issue he has is the fact that the MBOX/Pro Tools
supported/qualifiying hardware that he has, also has compatibility issues of
its own. It will only work with a short list of Firewire ports. So now,
you've got intersecting short lists to contend with.

One of the reasons why people are interested in Pro Tools is that they are
working in conjunction with someone else who also has Pro Tools.

There was a time when Pro Tools was on a lot of people's short list,
partially because the list of all available DAW software was pretty short.
Not so, today. Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more able
competition for it today, then there was way back then.

[Arny Krueger]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message


> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/487657-REG/Echo_AUDIOFIRE4_AudioFire4_FireWire_Audio_Interfac e.html

> , beats it on all levels for $299: 112 dB dynamic range,
> and sampling to 96kHz, which you could use to produce
> DVD-A hidef recordings.

It looks like the new consensus is that DVD-A is never going to be a
mainstream format. Distributing a recording in DVD-A is not going to sell a
lot of copies of it based on format, and not having a DVD-A format version
of a recording to market is not going to be much of a stumbling block.

As things continue to jell in the HDTV marketplace (it looks like Blu Ray
just got its majority) it seems reasonble to expect that Dolby TrueHD will
be the new emerging HD audio format of choice.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in
> message
>
>
> > Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home
> > recording? Thoughts and impressions? Value vs. quality?
>
> Zillions of people have MBoxes at home. I've got a client that has one.
>
> Bob nailed it. The MBox line of hardware spends a lot of time riding on the
> ample shirtails of Pro Tools software.
>
> Like many types of product that partially sells based on its reputation, you
> pay a premium for your place in the universe of that reputation.
>
> I have a client that runs a MBox, and one of the issues he has is that the
> software supports only a limited selection of hardware devices. You pretty
> much have to be running that qualifiying hardware to use Pro Tools.
>
> Another issue he has is the fact that the MBOX/Pro Tools
> supported/qualifiying hardware that he has, also has compatibility issues of
> its own. It will only work with a short list of Firewire ports. So now,
> you've got intersecting short lists to contend with.

Interesting, thanks. I understand that the thing works with my Mac.

>
> One of the reasons why people are interested in Pro Tools is that they are
> working in conjunction with someone else who also has Pro Tools.

Understood. I think this is probably why a lot of the folks at school
use it, as our studio is PT. As I understand it though, unless I want
to use a plug-in that the college has and I don't, it's not an issue if
I want do the mastering at the college since I can just deal with .wav
files. Sound right?

>
> There was a time when Pro Tools was on a lot of people's short list,
> partially because the list of all available DAW software was pretty short.
> Not so, today. Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more able
> competition for it today, then there was way back then.

Understood. But PT is still more or less the pro studio industry
standard, it is not?

Thanks for your help.

[George M. Middius]

Jenn said:

> > Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more able
> > competition for it today, then there was way back then.

> Understood. But

That's the invitation Krooger is waiting for. Prepare for the snotstorm.

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
>
>> "Jenn" > wrote in
>> message
>>
>>
>> > Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home
>> > recording? Thoughts and impressions? Value vs. quality?
>>
>> Zillions of people have MBoxes at home. I've got a client that has one.
>>
>> Bob nailed it. The MBox line of hardware spends a lot of time riding on
>> the
>> ample shirtails of Pro Tools software.
>>
>> Like many types of product that partially sells based on its reputation,
>> you
>> pay a premium for your place in the universe of that reputation.
>>
>> I have a client that runs a MBox, and one of the issues he has is that
>> the
>> software supports only a limited selection of hardware devices. You
>> pretty
>> much have to be running that qualifiying hardware to use Pro Tools.
>>
>> Another issue he has is the fact that the MBOX/Pro Tools
>> supported/qualifiying hardware that he has, also has compatibility issues
>> of
>> its own. It will only work with a short list of Firewire ports. So now,
>> you've got intersecting short lists to contend with.
>
> Interesting, thanks. I understand that the thing works with my Mac.

Probably, better than with a randomly-chosen PC.

>> One of the reasons why people are interested in Pro Tools is that they
>> are
>> working in conjunction with someone else who also has Pro Tools.

> Understood. I think this is probably why a lot of the folks at school
> use it, as our studio is PT. As I understand it though, unless I want
> to use a plug-in that the college has and I don't, it's not an issue if
> I want do the mastering at the college since I can just deal with .wav
> files. Sound right?

Not exactly, but possibly true if you keep things really simple.

Most modern recording is based .wav (or AIFF) files, but it involves more
than just one .wav file. Modern recordings are often more complex than just
a linear file that runs for the duration of the production and is composed
of one or two channels.

Modern recordings are often composed of multiple music files that start at
different times, have different processing applied to them, and are
different lengths.

If you want to produce something that is even a little bit more complex then
stone simple, you need more than 1 file with music, and you need a file
that contains information about how the various music files fit together.
This file is generically called a session file.

A session file lists the various music files, what their time offset is in
the final mixdown, how much of them should be active, what level they should
be mixed with, and what other edits need to be applied to them.

The problem is that while we can import and export music files, the options
for carrying a session file from one DAW program to another are more
limited.

For example, lets say that you make a recording of someone playing a guitar
and singing. You listen to the recording and it sounds great until the
second chorus, and then there's a train wreck. Obviously you want to redo
from the second chorus onward. So you do a second take of that. In your
finished recording you want the production to be based on the first take up
to the second chorus, and the second take from the second chorus onward. The
session file is the means by which this is established and implemented.

>> There was a time when Pro Tools was on a lot of people's short list,
>> partially because the list of all available DAW software was pretty
>> short.
>> Not so, today. Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more
>> able
>> competition for it today, then there was way back then.

> Understood. But PT is still more or less the pro studio industry
> standard, it is not?

AFAIK the industry is highly fragmented. There is no one standard. The only
people who think that PT is *the* standard are true believers and salesmen.
;-)

However, if you want to do some of your own work, and then finish that work
up in your school's production area, it would be helpful to be using
software that is compatible with theirs.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Arny Krueger" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>
> >> > Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home
> >> > recording? Thoughts and impressions? Value vs. quality?
> >>
> >> Zillions of people have MBoxes at home. I've got a client that has one.
> >>
> >> Bob nailed it. The MBox line of hardware spends a lot of time riding on
> >> the
> >> ample shirtails of Pro Tools software.
> >>
> >> Like many types of product that partially sells based on its reputation,
> >> you
> >> pay a premium for your place in the universe of that reputation.
> >>
> >> I have a client that runs a MBox, and one of the issues he has is that
> >> the
> >> software supports only a limited selection of hardware devices. You
> >> pretty
> >> much have to be running that qualifiying hardware to use Pro Tools.
> >>
> >> Another issue he has is the fact that the MBOX/Pro Tools
> >> supported/qualifiying hardware that he has, also has compatibility issues
> >> of
> >> its own. It will only work with a short list of Firewire ports. So now,
> >> you've got intersecting short lists to contend with.
> >
> > Interesting, thanks. I understand that the thing works with my Mac.
>
> Probably, better than with a randomly-chosen PC.
>
> >> One of the reasons why people are interested in Pro Tools is that they
> >> are
> >> working in conjunction with someone else who also has Pro Tools.
>
> > Understood. I think this is probably why a lot of the folks at school
> > use it, as our studio is PT. As I understand it though, unless I want
> > to use a plug-in that the college has and I don't, it's not an issue if
> > I want do the mastering at the college since I can just deal with .wav
> > files. Sound right?
>
> Not exactly, but possibly true if you keep things really simple.
>
> Most modern recording is based .wav (or AIFF) files, but it involves more
> than just one .wav file. Modern recordings are often more complex than just
> a linear file that runs for the duration of the production and is composed
> of one or two channels.
>
> Modern recordings are often composed of multiple music files that start at
> different times, have different processing applied to them, and are
> different lengths.
>
> If you want to produce something that is even a little bit more complex then
> stone simple, you need more than 1 file with music, and you need a file
> that contains information about how the various music files fit together.
> This file is generically called a session file.
>
> A session file lists the various music files, what their time offset is in
> the final mixdown, how much of them should be active, what level they should
> be mixed with, and what other edits need to be applied to them.
>
> The problem is that while we can import and export music files, the options
> for carrying a session file from one DAW program to another are more
> limited.
>
> For example, lets say that you make a recording of someone playing a guitar
> and singing. You listen to the recording and it sounds great until the
> second chorus, and then there's a train wreck. Obviously you want to redo
> from the second chorus onward. So you do a second take of that. In your
> finished recording you want the production to be based on the first take up
> to the second chorus, and the second take from the second chorus onward. The
> session file is the means by which this is established and implemented.

Good info, thanks. Obviously, I'm just in the process of learning all
this stuff. BTW, I'm thinking of taking the classes at our college.
Seems like it would be fun.

>
> >> There was a time when Pro Tools was on a lot of people's short list,
> >> partially because the list of all available DAW software was pretty
> >> short.
> >> Not so, today. Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more
> >> able
> >> competition for it today, then there was way back then.
>
> > Understood. But PT is still more or less the pro studio industry
> > standard, it is not?
>
> AFAIK the industry is highly fragmented. There is no one standard. The only
> people who think that PT is *the* standard are true believers and salesmen.
> ;-)

Got it. But it does seem as I look around, ask studio players, etc. PT
is the most used.

>
> However, if you want to do some of your own work, and then finish that work
> up in your school's production area, it would be helpful to be using
> software that is compatible with theirs.

Thanks for the advice.

[Jenn]

In article >,
"Soundhaspriority" > wrote:

> "Jenn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
> > In article >,
> > "Arny Krueger" > wrote:
> >
> >> "Jenn" > wrote in
> >> message
> >> .
> >> net
> >>
> >> > Anyone here have experience with the Mbox2 for home
> >> > recording? Thoughts and impressions? Value vs. quality?
> >>
> >> Zillions of people have MBoxes at home. I've got a client that has one.
> >>
> >> Bob nailed it. The MBox line of hardware spends a lot of time riding on
> >> the
> >> ample shirtails of Pro Tools software.
> >>
> >> Like many types of product that partially sells based on its reputation,
> >> you
> >> pay a premium for your place in the universe of that reputation.
> >>
> >> I have a client that runs a MBox, and one of the issues he has is that
> >> the
> >> software supports only a limited selection of hardware devices. You
> >> pretty
> >> much have to be running that qualifiying hardware to use Pro Tools.
> >>
> >> Another issue he has is the fact that the MBOX/Pro Tools
> >> supported/qualifiying hardware that he has, also has compatibility issues
> >> of
> >> its own. It will only work with a short list of Firewire ports. So now,
> >> you've got intersecting short lists to contend with.
> >
> > Interesting, thanks. I understand that the thing works with my Mac.
> >
> >>
> >> One of the reasons why people are interested in Pro Tools is that they
> >> are
> >> working in conjunction with someone else who also has Pro Tools.
> >
> > Understood. I think this is probably why a lot of the folks at school
> > use it, as our studio is PT. As I understand it though, unless I want
> > to use a plug-in that the college has and I don't, it's not an issue if
> > I want do the mastering at the college since I can just deal with .wav
> > files. Sound right?
> >
> >>
> >> There was a time when Pro Tools was on a lot of people's short list,
> >> partially because the list of all available DAW software was pretty
> >> short.
> >> Not so, today. Pro Tools isn't a bad product, but there is a ton more
> >> able
> >> competition for it today, then there was way back then.
> >
> > Understood. But PT is still more or less the pro studio industry
> > standard, it is not?
> >
> > Thanks for your help.
>
> I don't think it's true any more. The audio interface industry has grown
> enormously, with top-notch products. This fueled the rise of Steinberg as
> the high end offering for universal hardware compatibility. The completeness
> and complexity of Cubase 4 is daunting even to me, and I have an innate
> fascination with these things. Steinberg even networks the software
> interface across multiple machines via midi. One could build an enterprise
> level studio around Steinberg products.
>
> Both Cubase and Pro Tools have clunky aspects. Both mimic hardware mixer
> boards and patch panels. Cheaper programs actually have more innovation in
> the user interface area, because they don't have to appeal to old timers who
> came over from physical mixers.
>
> Any other program, other than ProTools, will allow you to choose any
> physical inteface that has an ASIO driver. I chose Cubase because permission
> to use is based on a dongle, which means I can use it on my desktop, my
> laptop(s), etc. I can use with a Protools gadget, a Tascam board, an
> AudioFire, or a Apogee MiniMe. I'm not locked in. Someone pointed out,
> however, that Sony has a very liberal usage policy, without requiring a
> hardware dongle. If I had known this, I might have chosen a Sony product,
> such as Acid.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511

Most interesting, thanks!