Mbox - still worth getting?

[linpaws]

Originally posted by ghostman420:
You don't need to shift things over every time you make a punch-in for christ's sake. The latency works track by track, not audio file by audio file. If you're gonna be doing punch-ins just do them like you normally would. Then all you have to do is consolidate the entire track into one audio file and shift it earlier by 164 samples.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So i record. i shift it back by the 164. listen to the result.
I think : 'that part i wonna do again'. so i punch in.
Now you're saying this punch won't be late by the 164 ?
I would love it if this were so, but it's not logic: when what you say is true, the 164 would not be there at all...
Right or wrong ?
Or even more strange; by selecting a part to record to it will be in time as well ?
To me this just don't make sense, please explain ?

Don't get me wrong, this has been on my mind for a while, i'd really like to know what's what.

[simone]

I started a similar thread "seeking advice" just the other day about whether or not to go all laptop or not. It seems like a growing number of people are going towards a more minimal setup...

I am considering getting the 002r...I don't record full bands but I do enough recording of 3 or 4 instruments or multiple stereo tracks at one time that I would rather have the flexibility of the 002...

...and somewhat related...how much can one get back from selling an 001 these days? and what percentage of what you paid can you get back for selling a mac that is only a year old?

sg

[joejackson]

There is a big but(T) though, one has to be very consequent about this, so after every recording, punch loop or whatever, one has to do this shifting, otherwise things get messy.
For the rest it's a very nice device with good sound quality.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You could just record your track, punches and all, and then shift it over as one, correct?

I just got an Mbox and so far I think it's a great solution (other than the latency, of course). I'm using it in OSX 10.2.6 with no problems and tons of plugs. Great for editing songs I did on TDM - and virtual tracks is a lifesaver for us that have more than 32.

[ghostman420]

Originally posted by joejackson:
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You could just record your track, punches and all, and then shift it over as one, correct?[/QUOTE]

That is absolutely correct. You don't need to shift things over every time you make a punch-in for christ's sake. The latency works track by track, not audio file by audio file. If you're gonna be doing punch-ins just do them like you normally would. Then all you have to do is consolidate the entire track into one audio file and shift it earlier by 164 samples.

What I mean by "track by track" is that each track you record is gonna be 164 samples later than the previous one. Hope this helps

[img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[linpaws]

Originally posted by linpaws:
<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:<hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by ghostman420:
You don't need to shift things over every time you make a punch-in for christ's sake. The latency works track by track, not audio file by audio file. If you're gonna be doing punch-ins just do them like you normally would. Then all you have to do is consolidate the entire track into one audio file and shift it earlier by 164 samples.

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">So i record. i shift it back by the 164. listen to the result.
I think : 'that part i wonna do again'. so i punch in.
Now you're saying this punch won't be late by the 164 ?
I would love it if this were so, but it's not logic: when what you say is true, the 164 would not be there at all...
Right or wrong ?
Or even more strange; by selecting a part to record to it will be in time as well ?
To me this just don't make sense, please explain ?

Don't get me wrong, this has been on my mind for a while, i'd really like to know what's what. <hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Well ?

[linpaws]

I feel a bit.. i don't know what...
Would be nice if you'd answer my question.
I find it to easy to say something, and don't ever to come back to see wether there's a reply or not, or something like that...
So, was i making sense?

[allstaar]

Hi linpaws.

The Mbox always records with 164 samples latency compared to what you are listening to from the mbox ( ie. rhythm track on Mbox, you on bass ) .

This is the case wether punching in or starting a fresh take.

You need to get into the habit of moving recordings 164 samples earlier after every take.

Alt+h takes you to the shift window, click the earlier button, enter 164 in samples field and press Return. Next time you do this it remembers the eariler button and samples so all you need is Alt+h, Return. Takes less than a second.

More details on this are available if you search this forum for Mbox latency.

Best wishes.

[Burton]

Wow, what a ridiculous pain in the ass... I'll stick with my 001.

[PacMan]

Well, the 001 has a latency also, doesn't it ?

It's less than the mbox's latency, but what's the difference ?

If you're gonna do it right, you need to shift the audio back.

I suppose to some, it's must be a lot easier to shift back audio by 50 (or whatever the 001 latency is), then by 164.

Go figure, lol.

Am i wrong about this ? I think not.

[img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[PBJ]

so does the 002r have this latency or not?