I have a g4 powerbook 867 Mhz, 384 mb RAM, running 10.2.8. After some investigation, I've narrowed my choices down to two, for money, quality and reliability: getting an M-Audio Duo and Logic Audio Big Box or getting the Digidesign M-box. (roughly $500 for either) I'm wondering if there's any major differences between the two set-ups (hardware or software advantages, etc.) and also if anyone has any recommendations or warnings for me on my set up in general.

I'll be doing some recording with a mixer probably or just using the 2 inputs for mics, etc. I recognize the limitations of USB but I need good software more than inputs/outputs right now. Maybe I'll upgrade to FireWire sometime. Thanks for your advice!

Yeah, keep it small until you find you really need more. I use Mbox/PTLE. It's great for audio recording then pottering with your tracks. I've heard for midi it's better using Logic than PT. Whatever you choose, you'll have a good time.

If you want to see what's already been said on the subject in MM, use the 'search' button

Ce message a été modifié par Presto - lun. 15 déc. 2003, 21:27.

Thanks. yeah I've been reading up on it. I just noticed that the Mbox's sample rate is only 44.1, 48 kHz. but the Duo offers up to 96 kHz. What does this difference mean in practical terms? (not how does it work but how important is it)

I have been looking into buying an audio interface as well. I was mainly looking at the M-box but this new m-audio firewire 410 just caught my eye, it looks pretty sweet. Ive figured out there are a lot more interfaces out there than I thought, so I dont really know what Im going to do anymore. I also have been looking at the lower priced control surfaces, Tascam has an amazing new firewire one (fw 1884), but its a bit pricy for what i want to spend right now. Check out some of the other interfaces and control surfaces i have found -->


http://www.m-audio.com/index.php?do=produc...11119907053a313

http://www.edirol.com/products/info/ua5.html
http://www.edirol.com/products/info/ua700.html
http://www.edirol.com/products/info/ur80.html

http://www.tascam.com/product_info.php?pid...puter_recording
http://www.tascam.com/product_info.php?pid...puter_recording
http://www.tascam.com/product_info.php?pid...puter_recording

Decide on what you want to plug into your computer - how many mics, guitars, keyboards...? If you want to input midi information, the mbox won't do it!

If you want good mics using 48V phantom power, a pair'll cost more than the mbox/PTLE.

Consider the app you want to use for making music, and for making the interface work. You get PTLE free with the mbox.

How are you going to listen to what you're making? I suggest a good pair of headphones. You can use your hifi amp & speakers for output, and only good monitors when you really can't resist paying out for them.

Cables need to be included in your costing.

If you're getting a new computer too and need to record with mics, consider the noise the computer makes (fans, CD, HD). Portables are the quietest.

I suggest finding an extra source of income too - heeh hee

Ah, I forgot:
48khz is quite sufficient unless you can hear sounds higher than 24khz. I doubt it. (Halving the sampling rate gives the highest sound frequency you get).

96khz takes up more room on your HD. And more computer power too.
I don't know why pros use more than 48khz. Perhaps because I haven't heard the results on veeeeeeeeeeeeery expensive equipment.

Remember, quality is no more than that of the weakest link in the chain. Often its the mics or the monitors. It could be our ears, but in my case it's my musical genius.

A popular rule of thumb is that it's better to increase the bit-depth of audio files rather than increase the sampling rate. In other words, working at 24-bit and 44.1KHz is good enough for most humans (really, only bats and high-end mastering engineers might be picky about your track's sonic definition above this) and is an acceptable compromise between sound quality and hard disk space. Plus everyone listens to the finished CD at 16-bit, 44/1KHz, anyway.

It is perfectly true, though, that the quality of your sound cannot be higher than the weakest link in your signal chain. You have a $1,000 acoustic guitar, but you record it using a $150 mic. Disappointed with the results, you will be.

As for the FireWire 410, there does seem to be quite a crowd of disgruntled users out there already. The reality doesn't seem to match the expectation, basically.

If you are recording songs with the intention of burning them on cd is there any benifit to recording 24bit, rather than at 16 if it's going to end up at 16 anyway?

Yes, because the original file you capture at 24-bit will have substantially more sonic detail than if you'd captured it at 16-bit. Those additional 8 bits REALLY account for a lot of extra audio info.

If the recording program you were using did a really poor job of dithering from 24 to 16 bits, you might be degrading your signal by changing bit depths anyway, so you could argue for staying in 16-bit all the way through from tracking to mixdown.

I would still record in 24-bit. Sequencers today do a good enough job of dithering for most people (I only know SX and Logic and both seem OK to my ears), so it's worth eating up the extra disk space by recording at as high a bit rate as your hardware allows.

M-Audio OmniStudio USB. There really isn't any lag time, at least not that I have experienced yet, and it is a great piece of equipment. I plug the Soundcraft M8 into it and then turn around and use SoundStudio, clean it up using SoundSoap, then import it to Cubase SL.