Is mbox killing my sound?

[SumOdRsn]

From what I remember, 128 is the lowest buffer setting the Mbox can run at. I moved up to a 002r, but I record at 128 frequently using the 002r if I have a few plug-ins running and can't run at 64. I found that 128 was low enough to work with.

[daeron80]

From what I remember, 128 is the lowest buffer setting the Mbox can run at. I moved up to a 002r, but I record at 128 frequently using the 002r if I have a few plug-ins running and can't run at 64. I found that 128 was low enough to work with.

I don't know if the Mbox has the same latencies as the 002 at the same buffer settings, but I have a web page detailing precisely how much latency you get on 002/Rs (samples and ms) for each setting. 128 is only about 10 ms @ 44.1/48 KHz sampling rates, which is fine as long as you're using headphones. For the musician in the booth, they're hearing themselves with approx the same delay time they would get if they were standing 5 ft from a hard, reflective surface, hearing their voice bounce back to them off of it. Quite easy to adapt to it.

If interested, see:
http://www.elvenminstrel.com/recordi...tencychart.htm

Also have a page (linked to from there) on mixing latencies.

The really nice thing about the 002s for tracking is the addition of Low Latency Monitoring mode, which gives you monitoring latencies of only 1 or 2 ms regardless of your hardware buffer setting.

[vocalvoodoo]

I use a Rode K2 into a GT Brick into an RME ADI-2 with my MBox 2 for VO work, and the difference of those converters vs. the MBox2 converters was huge to my ears. Also, a 128 buffer setting is more than workable for me.

[visitor]

well to report about mbox killing my sound:
after buying focal sm6 (decided to go for these after comparing them with dynaudio bm6a) which have two options for input signal: +4dB or -10dB, i see that signal from mbox is too strong for -10 and too week for +4.
i drive them on +4, because i fear that otherwise i could hurt my ears or the monitors..
this weak i get digi 002r (output is declared up to +18dB) to test if the sound gets bettah, now it is really dull (don't know if the term is correct but it sounds bad), the higher frequencies aren't clear, are damped.

so this probably means that i have reached the point where mbox simply can't deliver anymore?

the nextstep is to get a high end combination of mic preamp (or channel strip) and mic for voiceovers so any help with choosing is appreciated

like, is it better to get a tube pre or tube mic?
right now i am considering to compare SPL channel one, UA 6176, TLA ivory 5000 and avalon VT737SP to see how they behave. the problem is that there aren't many well stocked shops around me, but ok, it could be worse... so is it necessary to test/compare with the desired/chosen mic to get relevant information? is it true that the right combination is so important 'cause one pre might work well with one mic and totally lousey with another, even if the mic is of the same type?

i'll get back when i see how 002r delivers

[dmm]

I don't know if the Mbox has the same latencies as the 002 at the same buffer settings, but I have a web page detailing precisely how much latency you get on 002/Rs (samples and ms) for each setting. 128 is only about 10 ms @ 44.1/48 KHz sampling rates, which is fine as long as you're using headphones. For the musician in the booth, they're hearing themselves with approx the same delay time they would get if they were standing 5 ft from a hard, reflective surface, hearing their voice bounce back to them off of it. Quite easy to adapt to it.

If interested, see:
http://www.elvenminstrel.com/recordi...tencychart.htm

Also have a page (linked to from there) on mixing latencies.

The really nice thing about the 002s for tracking is the addition of Low Latency Monitoring mode, which gives you monitoring latencies of only 1 or 2 ms regardless of your hardware buffer setting.

I posted about an audiable difference between the 002 and the MBox not too long ago also. I did a few more tests and it really seems as though the monitoring is different between the 2. If your set on using an MBox then you may want to consider renting a good DA converter and see if that makes a difference.

That being said I also agree that a good engineer could put together great mixes with either unit.

and................Thanks for taking the time to write up that article Dave.

[visitor]

i read the short topic on mbox versus 002r sound and my first conclusion is, the converters play a minor role, the real issue here should be power!
studio standard input level for monitors is +4dBu. when i run anything from my mbox to monitors and input switch on monitors set to -10dBV level (the commercial units standard, or sth like that), the sound is too loud, but straight in my face, you bet!
i guess not all monitors have this option, only the standard +4dBu. but mbox spec. says mbox can deliver up to +4dBu, 002R up to +18dBu and rosetta 200 up to +26dBu. i think that says it all.

and the worst thing is, mbox could sound great if it wasn't for the ingeniusly designed mix knob!
if i run some mix material with monitors on -10dBV level and try to turn down this way too amplified sound coming out of the speakers, i at the same time have to increase the monitoring level of my input signal, bizzarre!

[visitor]

yp, with 002R (main output up to +18dBu), monitors sound like charm, and material recorded with mbox (now listened through 002R) is very ok quality. the fact is, that mbox (main output up to +4dBu) connected with studio monitors (+4dBu) is no go! captain mbox, doesn't have enough power!

generally speaking, as long as you run mbox on commercial hi-fi speakers (standard -10dBV) you will hear good results. otherwise get yourself converters like RME-ADI2 with output up to +19dBu (cca 550€)or just go with 002R.

just my opinion