Jump to content

Avid Mbox Pro Computer Interface - Now with Conclusions


Anderton

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

I've *very* close to buying a new audio interface, primarily for live use as the interface in the M-Audio Venom really isn't up to the task.

So, i've narrowed it down to:

Avid Mbox or Mbox Pro
RME Babyface
Apogee Duet 2.

What I'm really interested in is the latency and CPU usage. The built-in reverb on both the Avid units and the RME gets a big tick, so i'd love to see some details of the CPU usage at low buffer sizes (32/64/128) on the Mbox Pro.

I currently use both Ableton Live and Mainstage 2 with lots of VI's and the odd bit of real-time audio processing (live vocals with fx) so I need to keep the buffer low.

Great review!
badseed79

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by badseed79 View Post
What I'm really interested in is the latency and CPU usage. The built-in reverb on both the Avid units and the RME gets a big tick, so i'd love to see some details of the CPU usage at low buffer sizes (32/64/128) on the Mbox Pro.
I don't give CPU usage figures because I have a badass PC Audio Labs Windows computer with 8 cores, so it can handle a lot of tasks something like a dual core couldn't. As you probably know it's all a tradeoff - the computer, the project, how much RAM you have, the number of virtual instruments you're using, and so on.

But as anecdotal evidence, I'd say 128 samples would be the sweet spot between latency and not killing your computer. 64 samples is probably too low for reliable operation with complex projects, and 32 would be something you'd use when doing your initial tracking and you're recording a rhythm guitar part through an amp sim. I haven't run into anything that 256 samples couldn't handle.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
But as anecdotal evidence, I'd say 128 samples would be the sweet spot between latency and not killing your computer.
Thanks Craig. 128 is what I usually have my buffer set to.

Just out of interest, how does direct tracking with electric guitar into an Amp sim sound with the Mbox Pro? With my previous experiences I've never really been able to get anything useful.

Cheers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Not to hijack my own thread, but smile.gif...I have both Mac and Windows machines and use them both every day. I use Windows for 80% of my music and video production, and the Mac for 20%. For office work, I use Mac 80% and Windows 20%.

Windows 7 is what everyone wanted Windows to be, but put up with in the days of 95 and 98, which were nowhere near as mature as the Mac. The Mac still excels in some ways (no registry), but Windows has strong points as well. I believe the two platforms have reached parity from a user standpoint, although of course diehards on both sides will disagree with me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by zephonic View Post
It is funny you should mention that. I was sort of thinking how I would never want to replace my iMac for general computing duties, but I might just get a purpose-built PC instead of a MacPro for my DAW.

But back on-topic, have you tested the MBox3Pro with OSX?
No, not yet...people keep asking me the same question in the Octa-Capture pro review, too smile.gif

Is there anything you want me to test specifically other than "plugged it in, it works?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just wanted to jump in here to second some of Craig's findings and add a couple of details I've discovered myself. First, the Mbox Pro 3 is way better than I anticipated, so far. I just picked one up for a PT9 project I'm working on just for convenience (I usually use Cubase), and it looks like this unit may become a permanent staple of my studio. The sound quality is light years beyond the previous Mbox series, and I've been blown away at how well it works with other apps.

I've been testing it heavily under PT9, Cubase 6, Wavelab and Reaper, without a single issue so far. I haven't yet tried it with Sonar or Live. Performance/latency on Win 7 x64 has been surprising, to say the least. I've been testing it against several other interfaces in the studio, and even running TAFKAT's dawbench benchmarks (http://dawbench.com/) to get a feel for low-latency performance. I can confirm some of the dawbench results posted in the dawbench forum that the Mbox Pro 3 is getting some unusually good latency performance with driver 1.0.11 -- right up there with the best firewire interfaces! What a shocker! Someone at Avid did a decent job on the Windows drivers, I have to admit. I just hope they don't screw it up. smile.gif

So, what about the sound quality?

On first pass, I was impressed, and ran it up against a Steinberg MR816/Yamaha N12 and at first, I thought the converters were a little bit too harsh for my ears. The Steinberg/Yamaha units have set the standard for conversion in this price/class of unit, IMO. There are other good ones in this price range, and you can do better for a lot more money, but Steinberg/Yamaha hit one out of the park for that market class. So I compared the Mbox Pro 3 to that level. In one of my mixes, I noticed a strange high-frequency artifact that I hadn't heard before and immediately thought the Mbox Pro 3 was to blame. In fact, my heart fell a little bit and thought maybe the Mbox Pro 3 really sucked like its prior generation. So I compared with the Steinberg/Yamaha and to my shock and awe, I found the exact same artifact. I just didn't notice it before! Holy smoke. The MBox Pro 3 had just revealed a mix problem I hadn't noticed before. It's not to say that I wouldn't have eventually noticed the mix problem with the Steinberg/Yamaha, but the Steinberg/Yamaha converters seemed to be slightly more "smooth," which actually masked the problem ever-so-slightly for an important mixing phase.

The more I compared them, the more I realized that the Mbox Pro 3 had some very usable strengths and it could stand on its own. The Steinberg/Yamaha converters seem slightly "wider/smoother" while the Mbox Pro 3 converters seem slightly "sharper/crisper" in some areas with an unflattering reality check on the higher frequencies (which I consider a good thing). Both were comparable... the differences were amazingly minor (even considering the above differences), about the same class, so both can be used for professional results. The limitations at this level will be other factors in your signal path, plus the all-important operator skill level.

As for the preamps, I haven't tested them as seriously yet, so I want to withhold judgement for now, but on a first pass, they are very usable... and I instantly noticed the superiority between these and the prior generation of Mbox.

My only conclusion so far is that there is only ONE big problem for this interface... one HUGE mistake Avid made with it -- if you can call it that -- which is that they put the MBOX logo on it. This is NOT an MBOX class unit. If Avid is trying to rehabilitate the MBOX brand, then this is the unit to do it. It may, in fact, be a sacrificial lamb in the sense that it may never get the respect it deserves. But if truth trumps hype, the Avid team has created a real winner here.

Like Craig said, the build quality is very reassuring (although my unit has a slightly loose front panel on the left side that has been mentioned in the Avid forum a few times -- but that truly doesn't bother me, knowing the build quality underneath the panel, and the super-solid feel of the rest of the unit). I also don't like how the power adapter plug sticks out a little from the rear jack... I would have liked a little more secure connection back there, but now I'm getting caught up in stupid minor details. Overall, it gets a solid "A" for build quality despite these issues.

Sound quality at this price: check!

Build quality at this (or any) price: check!

Driver quality: check (so far, check plus!)

Windows latency in general (can't speak for Mac): check!

Windows low-latency stability with third-party apps: check!

I think Avid has a winner here. Too bad they put the MBOX logo on it... unless that's part of a grand plan to erase the sins of the past with this new generation. Bravo, Avid! You might have just won back a little respect with this solid effort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Members

Also trying to decide between avid Mbox (would love pro but prefer usb), apogee duet 2 and RME babyface.

I already have the eleven rack and pro tools 8 le. I love the 11r but not sure about protools. When I switch to mac last may I bought logic 9 and few weeks later the 11r but I've been using logic 9 since then.

Mic preamp and low latency is a big plus for me (using a shure sm7b on vocals).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Anderton View Post
We aim to please smile.gif I also find it encouraging the level of quality extends across the line, not just the top dog.
I wonder if you had a chance to look at the Mbox mini.
The printed specs don't look quite as good and the mini and the pro.
http://www.avid.com/static/resources...logy_Guide.pdf
I have been traveling with the mini on my laptop and it is really handy working with PT9 and the Complete Production Toolkit for editing, comping vocals in a hotel room. I haven't had a chance to A/B with the other units.

The Mbox pro would really be the bomb if it had ADAT I/O for expansion. I will probably get one and use it with the half space Black Lion word clock. The option for inserting High quaity pre's (I use NPNG, smoking hot) and avoiding the op amp seems like a winner. I cant think of any portable combination that could match it on paper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Members

I have to say that this review was extremely helpful.

The new mbox pro is definitely awesome, and I'm quite bent on purchasing it, it has everything I need, with the exception of one small gripe-the phantom power is not selectable.
Realistically I may never have an issue, but should I ever need to power certain inputs and not others I won't have the option.

The price...that's not really a gripe, it's great for the price I just wish it was cheaper, lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

Thanks for the great review Craig. I'm looking for a venue recording solution for a rock band, and unfortunately it seems this unit will not provide enough inputs... I need at least 8 mic pres and 8 trs ins to handle the full band. I'll be purchasing pt10 soon, and am considering the m-audio profire 2626 as an interface... also using windows 7, i5 processor, 12 gigs of ram. I'm not very familiar with this unit but I'm wondering if it is even close to the quality of the m-box pro or if there is a better solution in this price range. Thanks for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by Tmando View Post
Thanks for the great review Craig. I'm looking for a venue recording solution for a rock band, and unfortunately it seems this unit will not provide enough inputs... I need at least 8 mic pres and 8 trs ins to handle the full band. I'll be purchasing pt10 soon, and am considering the m-audio profire 2626 as an interface... also using windows 7, i5 processor, 12 gigs of ram. I'm not very familiar with this unit but I'm wondering if it is even close to the quality of the m-box pro or if there is a better solution in this price range. Thanks for your input.
You're correct, the Mbox would not do what you need.

I haven't worked with the 2626, so can't really comment. But, I think you're making a very smart choice to choose an interface with an ADAT optical input so you can expand it eight mic pres at a time. That's also something in favor of the MOTU interfaces, and several PreSonus ones as well.

Now if only the Mbox Pro had ADAT optical I/O... smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Just found out something tonight (better late than never, right?). I was checking out Pro Tools 10 with the Mbox (not the Mbox Pro, the USB one) and noticed that Pro Tools recognizes which inputs are selected when you open Pro Tools. For example, if you've switched Input 1 to instrument, it's labeled as "Guitar" when you go to assign I/O. But if you had the line/mic input selected when you opened Pro Tools, then the input is labeled as "Analog." Nice touch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Thanks for the great in depth review! After this review and some others on the web I decided to pull the trigger on the Mbox Pro to replace my old Digi002. I'm sure I will be pleased. Just one question. Early in the review you mention the inserts as a possible way to patch in a mic pre. I'm using a Mac w/ Pro Tools 9 and I have a TabV78 (V72 clone). I would like to run this and avoid the Mbox pre's altogether. Can you set the Insert as an input in the Pro Tools I/O set up? If so wondering how you do this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Quote Originally Posted by emerswin

View Post

Thanks for the great in depth review! After this review and some others on the web I decided to pull the trigger on the Mbox Pro to replace my old Digi002. I'm sure I will be pleased. Just one question. Early in the review you mention the inserts as a possible way to patch in a mic pre. I'm using a Mac w/ Pro Tools 9 and I have a TabV78 (V72 clone). I would like to run this and avoid the Mbox pre's altogether. Can you set the Insert as an input in the Pro Tools I/O set up? If so wondering how you do this?

 

You would just select whichever input has the insert you're using. As soon as you patch into the insert return, you disconnect the preamp.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Members

got my mbox pro and it really sounds great. blows my 002 away. finally can hear the 3D sound that I've heard at my buddies studios. better converters for sure. my TAB v78 mic pre never sounded this rich thru the 002. Also it was amazing how easy it was to install the driver and configure. Very satisfied! Thanks for the help and helpful review!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Members

What a great review! After months of stressing an I/O solution this review sealed the deal. Question, I'm a Logic 9 gal (more a composer then enginneer) any known issues w/using the MBox Pro?

Also, you think my 2010 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (8GB RAM) can handle a dozen tracks @ 24/96 (a few channel strip plugs and say BFD?) *recording to a FW800 GDrive Mini*

wave.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by anna_britbass88 View Post
What a great review! After months of stressing an I/O solution this review sealed the deal. Question, I'm a Logic 9 gal (more a composer then enginneer) any known issues w/using the MBox Pro?
Not that I'm aware of, but I've been using the Mbox primarily with Windows.

Also, you think my 2010 2.66 GHz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro (8GB RAM) can handle a dozen tracks @ 24/96 (a few channel strip plugs and say BFD?) *recording to a FW800 GDrive Mini*

wave.gif
A dozen tracks isn't that much, 96kHz will be the limiting factor but even then, you'll probably be okay. Just remember you'll stress out your computer half as much at 48kHz. I use 96kHz only on classical projects, and only because the client demands it. I've done several AB tests with 96kHz vs. 44.1kHz with GOOD converters, and no one has been able to tell the difference consistently. OTOH 24 bits is way better than 16 bits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Members

Thanks for the great review.

I'm in the process of getting a new system together. Was trying to decide between the mbox-pro and this..

http://www.thomann.de/ie/maudio_pro_...rack_ultra.htm

Wanted to know if you think the pro mbox is worth twice the price of the item I linked to and is worth waiting a bit longer to afford the pro?

Putting new pc together to to run it all on so can you let me know if spec of pc will be fine for low latency recording @ 96khz?

pc specs..
i7-2700k @ 4.8-5.0ghz(hyperthreaded so 8 cores)
16gb corsair dominator 1600mhz ram @ 7-8-8-24
Asus p8z68 deluxe\gene3
2x120gb Corsair Force Series 3 SATA 6Gb/s SSD drives in Raid0
Win7 x64

Thanks,

Mark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by MarcusarilliuS View Post
Wanted to know if you think the pro mbox is worth twice the price of the item I linked to and is worth waiting a bit longer to afford the pro?
I haven't had a chance to test the Fast Track Ultra, so I don't have any direct experience in comparing them. Sorry...

Putting new pc together to to run it all on so can you let me know if spec of pc will be fine for low latency recording @ 96khz?
Of course, performance depends on how many tracks you want to record. But for any reasonable amount, that should be fine. The one thing I'm not sure about is write speed of the SSD drives - they're great for playback, but write performance may be an issue with lots of tracks. If so, you can always get an external 7200 RPM drive and use that as your recording drive.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by MarcusarilliuS View Post
Thanks for the reply.

these SSD drives will wipe the floor with any mechanical drives. They are read/write @500+mb/s and in raid0 that's 1000+mb/s smile.gif
I assume you're using SLC instead of MLC, then. But you have to be kind of skeptical about specs, as it's real easy to make SSDs look good. This is a pretty interesting white paper:

http://www.stec-inc.com/downloads/wh...prise_SSDs.pdf

Part of the conclusions is that if you're just reading or just writing with a new drive, SSDs can't be beat. It's mixed read/write cycles where any weaknesses are exposed, especially with MLC technology, and if the drive has been in use for a while.

But I love my 80GB SSD smile.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Quote Originally Posted by MarcusarilliuS View Post
Interesting read.

I assume that setting them up in raid) will eliminate that problem as it can read/write 2 both separately at the same time?

Also I'd like to know what ssd drives the test was run on? Was it early generation or the current sata 6gb spec ones?
At this point, you'll need to ask a computer person, not a guitar player smile.gif I'm not an expert on SSD, all I know is what I've seen in white papers from Intel and papers like what I cited.

The impression I get is that SSDs have improved dramatically but that there are still considerable variations among drives. For example, I would assume the latest Intel drives are thumb.gif as they've been doing this a long time. But I don't know about the inexpensive, more common models. I do know that SLC drives remain more expensive than MLC.

The one thing I do see is people still talk about the limited life of SSDs, which diminishes the more you use them. But I think that's a myth, because if you do the math, even with heavy use worst-case you'd still get 20 or 30 years out an SSD drive. What's more concerning is that they don't just "fail," and unlike a hard drive, they don't give you warnings. Instead, they deteriorate over time. It's hard to get really authoritative data about how many drives deteriorate how badly over how much time...I'm not worried about it, but IIRC SSD drives use technology similar to USB flash drives, and I've had several of them go bad over the years, without that much use. But I've also had infant mortality on hard drives. So like anything involving computers, most of the time you'll be okay but every now and then something sucks. idn_smilie.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...