low latency and Mbox 2 Pro . Anybody successful?

[The golfer]

I can't record with buffer size bigger than 256k (low latency monitoring enabled) because I am doing foley recording and any setting higher than that is not appropriate (delay). I usually record from an aux input bussed to the track i am recording to control the recording level. I use no plugins and playback a maximum of 8 to 10 track. Does anybody had success with the mbox 2 pro for this kind of recording without having a whole bunch of error messages?

[len branville]

I can't record with buffer size bigger than 256k (low latency monitoring enabled) because I am doing foley recording and any setting higher than that is not appropriate (delay). I usually record from an aux input bussed to the track i am recording to control the recording level. I use no plugins and playback a maximum of 8 to 10 track. Does anybody had success with the mbox 2 pro for this kind of recording without having a whole bunch of error messages?

Hello Golfer,

With my Mbox 2 Pro and my Intel dual 2 ghz Macbook (with 2 gigs of RAM) I can record with low latency monitoring enabled at a 64 sample hardware buffer setting with no problems whatsoever. This session also has 5 stereo and 5 mono playback tracks with several plug-ins enabled (and I've gone beyond this too!). Mileage varies but this rig has been solid as a rock for me thus far. Even though this is a new Intel Mac and it's maxed out with RAM, I thought I'd give my two cents about recording and playback at those low buffer settings. Happy recording!



len b

[tele_player]

With Low Latency Monitoring enabled, monitoring delay is not related to buffer size. With LLM disabled, monitoring delay is almost completely determined by buffer size.

Something here isn't making sense. I used an Mbox 2 Pro for a week, with Quad G5, and was able to use buffer size of 128 no problem, for low latency monitoring without the side-effects of using the LLM setting (LLM disables plugins and sends on record-enabled channels assigned to the main outputs). The few times I tried it, LLM worked correctly.

[nowinner]

I also have a Mbox 2 PRO. I have finally got it to work. I had to do a re-install of my OS on my mac and install everything new again.

No I can record with 64 buffer size, no problem. even with some plugs and a Xpander...

Works great. Before on the other hand was a different story :-/

[The golfer]

Anybody of you guys using an auxiliary input (bussed to the input of tracks) while recording and punch"in". I use a lot of fadein fadeout on this aux input to record. I am sure this adds in latency.
Also in my case switching the "low latency monitoring" on and increaing or decreasing the buffer size has a impact on latency in my case.

thanks for your comments...

[len branville]

Anybody of you guys using an auxiliary input (bussed to the input of tracks) while recording and punch"in". I use a lot of fadein fadeout on this aux input to record. I am sure this adds in latency.
Also in my case switching the "low latency monitoring" on and increaing or decreasing the buffer size has a impact on latency in my case.

thanks for your comments...

Golfer,

I haven't tried what your describing, but playback and recording with a 64 sample setting works fine with low latency monitoring selected on or off on my rig. This system has been impressive for me on OSX. However, I can get it to break more easily under Bootcamp (for anybody that's wondering). Two more cents.

lb

[tha k man]

Anybody of you guys using an auxiliary input (bussed to the input of tracks) while recording and punch"in". I use a lot of fadein fadeout on this aux input to record. I am sure this adds in latency.
Also in my case switching the "low latency monitoring" on and increaing or decreasing the buffer size has a impact on latency in my case.

thanks for your comments...

Tried it with an AUX bussed to a couple of track inputs - no problem here at 64. Sorry, can't reproduce your problem.

[bassntreble]

what kind of computers are you guys using that you can record at a 64 sample buffer size? with a dualcore 2.3 ghz G5 i can't get below 256 without errors on a digi002r rig. and that's just using BFD

[len branville]

what kind of computers are you guys using that you can record at a 64 sample buffer size? with a dualcore 2.3 ghz G5 i can't get below 256 without errors on a digi002r rig. and that's just using BFD

Hello,

I have a Macbook Intel dual core 2ghz with 2 gigs of RAM using an Mbox Pro. I have BFD Lite (it came bundled with the Mbox Pro but I have yet to use it.. excited to try it though). I would think a G5 would blow the socks off a Macbook/Macbook Pro (but it seems as though thats not always the case.. especially with the PPC models versus the Intel models.. unless that's what you have -I'm kinda guessing though). I think Apple has really nailed it with these Intel models. Can't wait until everything is compatible and all the bugs are worked out (so far so good except not all plug-ins/apps are ready yet).

Good luck!

Len

PS. Is BFD a virtual instrument ? If so that could explain it needing more system resources (as I'm not using any VI's, just RTAS comp's, EQ's, verbs, etc., when I'm recording/playback @ 64 samples).

L

[tha k man]

what kind of computers are you guys using that you can record at a 64 sample buffer size? with a dualcore 2.3 ghz G5 i can't get below 256 without errors on a digi002r rig. and that's just using BFD

BFD would be the culprit there...

This was on a Dualcore 2.0Ghz G5.