Divorcing Avid Mbox

[David Abraham]

I've used Avid Mbox interfaces for years, but now it's time to move on. The driver situation is just not where it needs to be.

Is there a current defacto interface that people are using with Mac/Logic in the Mbox Pro price range?

[MikeRivers]

Seems like everything has a driver problem with something, somewhere. Too many options to be sure of getting it right . What have you seen that you like? Check manufactuturers' forums and see who's complaining about what with which operating system.

[David Abraham]

For over a decade I use to keep up with a lot of the hardware vendors and I beta tested DAWs and so on, then I got caught up in the business side of music with my son so I just defaulted to Digi stuff for a while. But damn they just never seem to have a good driver story. I'll start digging into this again...maybe Apogee will save me.

[Anderton]

 

Originally Posted by David Abraham

I've used Avid Mbox interfaces for years, but now it's time to move on. The driver situation is just not where it needs to be.

 

Are you talking about the 3ed generation, or previous generations?

[Alndln2]

Hard to beat RME for solid drivers on either platform.

[David Abraham]

Originally Posted by Anderton

Are you talking about the 3ed generation, or previous generations?

I'm on the second generation for this particular computer, pops n clicks everywhere on Mountain Lion. Have a Digi 003 on another mission-critical system that's still on Leopard because I've never been able to upgrade an OS without something from DIGI going wacky and then waiting forever while they certify the new OS, if ever.

So rather than go to generation 3 this time I want to go in a brand new HW direction.

[Philter]

I don't ever upgrade my ProTools rigs for this reason. I wait for overwhelming reports of a solid operating system/Protools version and then set up a new rig with those specs. My next rig looks to be Lion and 10.2. Once I build a system I just think of it as hardware, which is what it is really. Not an excuse, just an observation. If you are always chasing the upgrade train you're going to have driver problems no matter what you use.

[Ernest Buckley]

Using the Duet 2 for almost a year. Great sound, no driver issues.

[UstadKhanAli]

I don't own either, but I probably hear the least amount of driver problems with either the Apogee Duet 2 or RME products.

[David Abraham]

 

Originally Posted by Ernest Buckley

Using the Duet 2 for almost a year. Great sound, no driver issues.

 

Great, I was leaning in this direction. Thanks.

[Anderton]

FWIW...I never liked MBox interfaces...not just the drivers, but I thought the mic pres were average at best. However, I got a chance to review the 3rd generation MBox pro, and it's a whole different world. The construction quality is superb, and the drivers have been great for me with both Windows and Mac (although on the Mac, I'm still running Snow Leopard, not Lion, so that might have a lot to do with it). Jon Chappell has also tested out the 3rd Gen MBox on the Mac with respect to aggregation, and he's finding the same results I am.

I wouldn't try to dissuade anyone from Apogee interfaces, which are great. RME and Focusrite do the job too, although if you read the forums for ANY interface manufacturer, you'll come to the conclusion that their drivers are uniformly horrible and don't work with anything But I do want to put in a good word for the 3rd gen models, which are night and day compared to what came before. The specs are outstanding from an audio standpoint in terms of distortion (there really isn't any) and noise; even crosstalk, which is where many interfaces fall down, is exceptionally good. The MBox Pro has become my preferred interface for the Mac.

I met the main 3rd gen hardware designer at PreSonuSphere (he does projects for PreSonus now), and I took advantage of the opportunity to pick his brain and find out why the new models were so much better. There were some valid technical reasons, particularly how he obsessed over the circuit board layout

[Huh?]

Very interesting Craig.

Let me ask you this...... as one in a similar same boat as David.....002, PT9 and Snow Leopard.

I have been wanting to upgrade to PT10 and ML but I want a better interface before I do. I've been looking at quality interfaces and it came down to 3 options. Apogee Ensemble, RME Fireface UFX and the Universal Audio Apollo. All expensive. Here's the tricky part. I could get one of these expensive units, but then my "mad money" account is wiped out completely......and honestly I need/want other stuff.

I read about people saying the Apogee was so incredibly noticeable in terms of audio quality improvement. I hear and read the same about the UA and RME. You hear terms like ".......transparent, wider, increased stereo depth of field, greater depth perception, as soon as I heard an older session through it, I got a bigger boner than any other interface has given me..."............. stuff like that, suggesting the difference between the Ensemble say, and a previous generation 003, 002 or MBox ......was like the difference between eating chalk and cheese.

Are you suggesting I might find that level of difference between an MBox 3 Pro and my 002? Are the mic pre's/converters and clock really that good?


Of course, from time to time one can find used Ensemble's and that is a possibility for me as well.

[MikeRivers]

Why don't you buy one, try it, and if it doesn't excite you, send it back and get an Apogee or RME. If that doesn't excite you either, get a better microphone or better monitors. The difference between one converter and another these days isn't all that great. What's different, though, is the analog circuitry, power supply, how the circuit board is laid out . . stuff like that. It's design engineering - putting standard components together in the best possible way. Chips are cheap. It's how you put them together that costs money.

[Lee Knight]

I'm not recommending but only sharing some personal experience. Day to day, I use an 003 with an API A2D front end. It sounds incredible. But...

I recently helped test a buddy's new RME UFX. It was a simple, have some beers, plug in a couple of good mics, and try some tunes. So I sat there with a 414 on my acoustic guitar, an 87 on my voice, and sang a couple of mildy intoxicated versions of One by Nilsson and some of my own tunes. All tunes I know well, and mics I'm very acquainted with...

...the experience of hearing the combo of pre, A/D and D/A... was inspiring. I don't know about soundstage and imaging and depth and whatever. It just made me wet my pants and beg to keep doing takes. The playback was equally as rewarding. YMMV, but I absolutely dug that interface and its accouterments.

I wouldn't hesitate to use that unit for a crucial gig. I like it.

[UstadKhanAli]

I do not know what an MBox 3 Pro sounds like.

What I can tell you is that the difference between a Digi001 and an Apogee Rosetta 800 is night and day. It's like wiping mud off your windshield and seeing crystal clear views. This is a difference that was not subtle. Everyone who came in my studio noticed, even if I didn't immediately say that I had changed my converters.

The difference between Digi002 and the Rosetta 800 are quite wide, although not nearly as extreme as a Digi001 (Digi001 converters seriously suck).

The Rosetta 800 converters are better than the Ensemble converters. By how much, I can't tell you, but the Ensemble converters are definitely cheaper, which the Apogee reps freely admit. But I have a feeling the Ensemble converters are still quite good.

Newer converters are definitely much better in general, so you might not find a stunning difference between, say, an Apollo, RME, Apogee, or perhaps even the MBox 3 Pro, which if I recall, you could hear on demos on M-Audio's website before. I have a PreSonus FireStudio, and while I haven't A/B'd the Apogee and the PreSonus, I was surprised at how good the PreSonus sounded when I ran out of converters and used those. They're really quite good, especially given the $600 price tag.

[MikeRivers]

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

What I can tell you is that the difference between a Digi001 and an Apogee Rosetta 800 is night and day. It's like wiping mud off your windshield and seeing crystal clear views.

The difference between Digi002 and the Rosetta 800 are quite wide, although not nearly as extreme as a Digi001 (Digi001 converters seriously suck).

If it's any consolation, the converters on the original Pro Tools HD hardware seriously sucked as well. Anybody who cared used the digital inputs and Apogee or Mytek converters. It was like an expensive 8 channel dongle. Since Pro Tools 9, there's a lot more choice for I/O, so it's harder to make a decision. It's true, though, that in the Rosetta days, Apogee was one of the few companies that actually designed converters and did it well. They weren't the greatest, but often were the best in their class.

But you really have to consider the whole system. Mic preamps make a big difference, as do converters, and, on the D/A end, the design of the analog output system. With so many combo units these days, it's difficult to completely isolate any single part of the system, at least not without changing something else in the process.

[Goobers]

Originally Posted by David Abraham

I've used Avid Mbox interfaces for years, but now it's time to move on. The driver situation is just not where it needs to be.

Is there a current defacto interface that people are using with Mac/Logic in the Mbox Pro price range?

I tend to stay away from Digi hardware when using CoreAudio applications on the Mac (e.g. Logic).

[UstadKhanAli]

Originally Posted by MikeRivers

If it's any consolation, the converters on the original Pro Tools HD hardware seriously sucked as well. Anybody who cared used the digital inputs and Apogee or Mytek converters. It was like an expensive 8 channel dongle. Since Pro Tools 9, there's a lot more choice for I/O, so it's harder to make a decision. It's true, though, that in the Rosetta days, Apogee was one of the few companies that actually designed converters and did it well. They weren't the greatest, but often were the best in their class.

They must still be pretty darn good if they're better than the Ensemble, which people keep raving about, and the Rosetta 200 is still in production.

But you really have to consider the whole system. Mic preamps make a big difference, as do converters, and, on the D/A end, the design of the analog output system. With so many combo units these days, it's difficult to completely isolate any single part of the system, at least not without changing something else in the process.

Well, of course preamps and D/A make a big difference; they always have.

But there were tons of combo units back then, as there are now, so nothing's changed. The Digi001 was a combo unit, don't forget, with mic preamps and D/A at the end. And there were many others. People like convenience. But it's not hard to separate. Bypass the converters, as I did with the Digi001. Bypass the mic preamps, as I did with the Digi001. Bypass the D/A, as I did with the Digi001. Hear a difference? Hear a big difference? Done.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Huh?

Are you suggesting I might find that level of difference between an MBox 3 Pro and my 002? Are the mic pre's/converters and clock really that good?

First of all, Apollo is a whole different animal because you're also buying the DSP platform for running UA plug-ins. UA went out of their way to have the most neutral sound possible so that the subtleties of things like their channel strip plug-ins would be more apparent.

There's a pro review I'm doing on the Apollo you might find interesting.

There's also a pro review of the Mbox 3. Check out posts #12 and #16 for some real-world specs.

[MikeRivers]

Originally Posted by UstadKhanAli

The Digi001 was a combo unit, don't forget, with mic preamps and D/A at the end. And there were many others. People like convenience. But it's not hard to separate. Bypass the converters, as I did with the Digi001. Bypass the mic preamps, as I did with the Digi001. Bypass the D/A, as I did with the Digi001. Hear a difference? Hear a big difference? Done.

It's rarely clear what you're bypassing (if anything) when you use an external preamp. While I don't know what's inside the 001, it's pretty typical for a line input to go through an attenuator and then through the mic amplifier circuit, Generally this isn't a bad way to go, but the biggest change you're making is by using a different interface to the microphone. And if there's an insert jack which actually does bypass the internal preamp, it's nearly always unbalanced. Maybe a balanced connection would sound even better by getting rid of some noise.

Seems like there should be more of a market for an AES computer interface, which is about as close to a transparent digital interface there is. Optical connections alway introduce some jitter, but then modern converters are more immune to it so it's easier to mix and match than it used to be. And when it sounds better with am outboard D/A converter, you really can't tell if the improvement is a result of the D/A conversion or of the line amplifier that's feeding the listening chain. That's what I meant by being difficult to separate the individual pieces of the chain.

Still, what your ears tell you is what counts. Making something sound better is always good.

[David Abraham]

Originally Posted by Anderton

There's also a pro review of the Mbox 3. Check out posts #12 and #16 for some real-world specs.

Fantastic review...ya done changed me mind.

[Huh?]

Originally Posted by Anderton

First of all, Apollo is a whole different animal because you're also buying the DSP platform for running UA plug-ins.

Yes when I first saw that list of UA plug-in's in post #8 of the review.....I almost freaked. But you have the UAD-2 card in addition right? The Apollo only comes with several included plugs....not near that many, am I correct?

Originally Posted by Anderton

UA went out of their way to have the most neutral sound possible so that the subtleties of things like their channel strip plug-ins would be more apparent.

Do you think they skimped anywhere because of the plug in upsale factor?

Originally Posted by Anderton

There's also a pro review of the Mbox 3. Check out posts #12 and #16 for some real-world specs.

Yes that was cool. Are you going to do that for the Apollo also, so we can compare?

I must say....and this is extremely shallow of me......but the overall cheap look of the Mbox and the desktop look as well, are real turn off's for me. I associate everything I do not like about the previous Mbox families, with this new unit. Surely they could have done so much different for not much greater cost? A single rack space design, "neat and accented with the subtle use of pleasing appointments"......LOL!!!

Thanks Craig. Looking forward to more on the Apollo and I will re-read everything tomorrow.

[Anderton]

Originally Posted by Huh?

Yes when I first saw that list of UA plug-in's in post #8 of the review.....I almost freaked. But you have the UAD-2 card in addition right? The Apollo only comes with several included plugs....not near that many, am I correct?

To quote myself from post #2 of the review: "Apollo comes with the underrated Analog Classics Plug-In Bundle, which is covered in depth in the other thread about Powered Plug-Ins. You also get a $100 voucher for the UA store toward the purchase of UA's extensive collection of optional-at-extra-cost plug-ins. This can add up, so fortunately, there are 14-day free trials of all plug-ins so you can see if they warrant communing with your bank account."

Check out post #4 in that thread for an overview, and posts #44, #45, #51, #52, and #53 for audio examples.

Do you think they skimped anywhere because of the plug in upsale factor?

No, they just charged more I get the sense this was a product where they designed it first, and figured out the price later.

Yes that was cool. Are you going to do that for the Apollo also, so we can compare?

As soon as I can run it on Windows, which is currently the only platform where I can do that kind of testing.

I must say....and this is extremely shallow of me......but the overall cheap look of the Mbox and the desktop look as well, are real turn off's for me. I associate everything I do not like about the previous Mbox families, with this new unit. Surely they could have done so much different for not much greater cost? A single rack space design, "neat and accented with the subtle use of pleasing appointments"......LOL!!!

Well, the thing is built like a tank, and I believe the shielding would protect it from everything short of an EMP directly overhead.

[MikeRivers]

Originally Posted by Huh?

I must say....and this is extremely shallow of me......but the overall cheap look of the Mbox and the desktop look as well, are real turn off's for me.

I think that the MBox was designed from the start, all the way back to the name, to be a product for the desktop customer. The Digidesign 001 was too "pro" for these people, so they came up with the MBox line and sold a ton of them. If you're beyond that (or never were there to begin with) then it's probably time to move on to something else. It may not sound any better than a new MBox, but it may offer you more flexibility for connections, synchronization, control, and installation. And it might even sound better . . or not.

The pro audio field has a long tradition of taking advantage of "consumer" products in professional applications when they meet a need (which includes the need to not spend too much money).