Protools Mbox vs TC Impact twin - audio interfaces

[Per Lindhof]

Hi all

I know that this topic may have been discussed elsewhere, but does anybody of you have any experience with Protools Mbox or TC Impact twin for recording CG?

I have been adviced to change my Edirol UR 80 to something more modern (the Edirol is a 2002 design) as I've got some very good microphones..

I've been recommended the Mbox and warned about it too. The Impact Twin is a well recommended option among others, but I've never heard of anybody using any of them for classical guitar.

I will only record my solo classical guitar with them- I use Sonal LE software and im medium satisfied with it.

Right now I have a Tochiba Satellite pro laptop but I may change it for a PC for music recording only.

Any advices are appreciated.

Kind regards

Per Lindhof

[DonM]

Per:

Some thoughts:

#1 The M-Box is USB (unless you are referring to the M-Box Pro) and the TCIT is firewire. Essentially the buck stops there for me. Firewire over USB for audio interfaces. I own about a dozen interfaces (I don't own the TCIT however) USB is not designed properly for the kinds of things we need to do in realtime high resolution digital audio capture.

#2 The TCIT has 14inputs and 14 outputs (4 analog and 8 ADAT and 2 SPDif) The Mbox (which I also own) has 2in 2out and I think the SPDif are mirrored which is why I refer to it as a 2x2. In other words it is a two channel device with no growth.

#3 Regarding Fidelity, the microphones, their placement and the environment in which you record in have a greater impact on the recorded quality of your instrument than the difference between these two devices. I find the M-box preamps to be moderate in fidelity and on the high side of signal noise. I have two of the M-Audio Firewire devices that vary wildly in their self noise and preamp quality. I use presonus, focusrite, yamaha and RME interfaces as well. If you are open to suggestion, I'd look at the http://www.focusrite.com/products/audio_interfaces/saffire_pro_40/. An excellent blend of great driver, mixer software, excellent preamps, good word clock, tons of inputs and outputs.

-D

[Per Lindhof]

Hi DonM

Thanks a lot. I read it as you don't recommend the Mbox. It has a very mixed reputation (loved and hated) and for some reason I'm not hooked on it (but my local shop highly recommended it over the TCIT).

The main problem with advices regarding recording CG is that there are so few people who actually have experience doing it - generally it seems to be overkilled ideas from people working with 16 tracks recording a huge orchestra.

I need two good sounding channels - that's it.

The TCIT is very cheap in Denmark (less than 400$)- I guess I should try it.

Kind regards

Per Lindhof

[fatwarry]

Per,
Are you having problems with your Edirol? Or does it lack facilities you need? Or do you just fancy a change? Reason I ask is that I recall it being highly rated at the time with several reviews saying it sounded as good as far more expensive units and things haven't really moved on sound quality-wise in the intervening time. So unless there's a good reason to change it I'd be surprised if you weren't disappointed with a replacement.

[Per Lindhof]

Hi fatwarry
Well I do have problems with it. It's very difficult to adjust the inputs on the channels. They are either too high or too low. Just half a millimetre turn on the buttons makes a huge difference - irritating as I don't get a decent stereo signal.

And then I've been recommended to get an interface with better pre amps. The Edirol is a multi functional machine made for mixing MIDI signals on many tracks. I guess they saved a little on the pre amps and AD converters (and it's a 2001 design - some developement has happened since I guess).

For some reason I'm not satisfied with the signal I get from it. It's kind of plastic sounding (if you get that term).
My guitar my mics (neumann KM184) and my room are all great - the recording isn't.

I have now ordered a TC Impact Twin which I have been recommended highly - and then I will buy a new PC..

I will come back with some recordings soon

Kind regards

Per Lindhof

[mqbernardo]

kind of late to the party (and first post: hi everybody!), but TC drivers can be very flimsy and their tech support is (was, at least) very sloooooow...

i have a konnekt24D (i suppose the internal architecture is similar to the TCIT) and it gave me non stopping problems to the point that i had to ditch it... DPC spikes, stuttering audio, random bursts of noise (these were dangerous,as they were VERY loud), audio drop-outs from a few seconds to almost a minute and - the cherry on top - sometimes the unit just seemed to die, and i had to close everything down and start-up a fresh. To make things worse, TC support was very slow at responding, worked in denial and in some cases seemed to imply it was the user´s fault that their machines did not work properly. My unit behaved the same way in my three laptops (from three different brands) and with my desktop. And all of those had the Texas Instruments FW chipset, the only one TC acknowledged a posteriori to be supported. Their support forum got flooded with similar complaints and had to be "trimmed" down of certain, say, heterodoxies. sad story,m really.

why am i bothering to write this? my best advice is if, by any chance, you detect that something is not working as it should, do yourself a favour and return the unit while you can. you´ll be saving some headaches in the future. Don´t get me wrong, i hope everything works flawlessly from the start and i have nothing against TC (i´ve moved on and still love their processors). I just don´t think it is worth to be waiting for 5 years for a driver that does not seem to come. My alternative would be a MOTU ultralite mkIII hybrid. the focusrite suggestion above also seems a sensible one.

wish you the best of lucks,
miguel.

[GeoffB]

Hi Miguel, welcome to the forum. Would you like to introduce yourself here?

Geoff

[DonM]

kind of late to the party (and first post: hi everybody!), but TC drivers can be very flimsy and their tech support is (was, at least) very sloooooow...
why am i bothering to write this? my best advice is if, by any chance, you detect that something is not working as it should, do yourself a favour and return the unit while you can. you´ll be saving some headaches in the future.

wish you the best of lucks,
miguel.

M:
Welcome. Agreed on the early test and return asap if the unit doesn't perform well for you. As a former member of the QC team of a audio software developer, I can say reports of failures and problems are essential to the developers. I too have had issues with the TC equipment, at the time I had one loaned to me for testing with several hardware configs (OSX, Win) and software. I am a firm believer in providing highly accurate and detailed accounts of performance issues with equipment and software to the developers.

The landscape of hardware configurations, operating system variables and software install sets create a chaotic world for developers. The information we provide them, the better the products will perform. Every company should have an avenue for such input if they care about customers and profits.

-D

[mqbernardo]

@GeoffB : thanks! perhaps i should have started there... it´s done now, though.

@DonM: gotcha, it was just a sort of call for thorough testing for the OP, as him already seems to have the unit with him. i agree completely with you, and in fact my reports to TC (or any other tech support thing i´ve been involved) were the most extensive and thorough that i could provide at that time. i even sent them Hijackthis logs (wish i believed were useless - i´m no software guy - but out of pure despair). i believe that´s on the buyer´s line of obligation. then there are the product author responsibilities: to provide the more complete and qualified support service possible in the least amount of time; in the case of TC that was not the case (i waited 2 years of patient email sending without any result); i sincerilly hope that they´ve managed to improve on that most important of fronts.
i also believe that, while the incredible amount of variables of hardware/software configs out there can be unmanageable, there are things that a manufacturer ought to take care of prior to launching a new product, such as stating that their units only work with a TI FW chipset or that they do not support toshiba laptops (those were two of the answers i got from TC after the fact and only after insistent emailing). that´s why i felt a bit apprehensive of the OP going with the TC and wanted to send him a (after the fact, it´s true) call.

thanks for your attention,
cheers,
Miguel.

[mqbernardo]

sorry for coming back to this, but just so it looks that i´m not on a anti-TC spree it should be said:

- the unit is beautiful
- i quite liked the cleanness and overall quality of sound (that´s why i waited that much time for a solution)
- the price was not bad at all
- the software that came with it (specially the reverb) was very high quality

again, sorry for the insistence but i have to increase my post-count somehow, right?

cheers,
miguel.

[Bryanm]

Hi All,
I will start off my comment by admitting that I used to work for Avid / Digidesign (the company that makes the MBox/Pro Tools) and that my experience working there was a great one. It ended badly because Avid as a company is terribly mismanaged and hasn't made a nickel in years. (You can see for yourself by looking at their financial history on any publicly-available financial website.) That said, I can highly recommend the new MBox (3rd Generation) as a two-channel audio interface. The mic-pre's are WAY better than the MBox 2 and the D/A convertors are also a big step up. You only have to listen to mediocre MP3's through both of them to hear the difference. Plus the MB(3) is rugged, has a nice volume knob and is imminently portable. I use Pro Tools 9HD, Logic 9, Reason/Record, Ableton Live, Sibelius, Final Cut, Sound Track, etc. all through the new MBox with no issues at all. I think the USB issues with the older interfaces were because it used USB 1.2 standard rather than USB 2.0. Even though I have a Mac with FireWIre 800, I have no problems with latency over USB 2.0. Give it a try!

Bryan

[rojarosguitar]

Hi Per, did you decide on your interface? Take a look into RME Fireface.
I don't have experience with this one but with anoother RME product, and they are extremely well made and reliable - see also the reviews. You can look it up in the well known german music mailing company ...

best wishes
Robert

[DonM]

Hi All,
I will start off my comment by admitting that I used to work for Avid / Digidesign (the company that makes the MBox/Pro Tools) and that my experience working there was a great one. It ended badly because Avid as a company is terribly mismanaged and hasn't made a nickel in years. (You can see for yourself by looking at their financial history on any publicly-available financial website.) That said, I can highly recommend the new MBox (3rd Generation) as a two-channel audio interface. The mic-pre's are WAY better than the MBox 2 and the D/A convertors are also a big step up. You only have to listen to mediocre MP3's through both of them to hear the difference. Plus the MB(3) is rugged, has a nice volume knob and is imminently portable. I use Pro Tools 9HD, Logic 9, Reason/Record, Ableton Live, Sibelius, Final Cut, Sound Track, etc. all through the new MBox with no issues at all. I think the USB issues with the older interfaces were because it used USB 1.2 standard rather than USB 2.0. Even though I have a Mac with FireWIre 800, I have no problems with latency over USB 2.0. Give it a try!

Bryan

B:
The fit finish and build of the new Mbox is quite impressive. It is the only USB interface that I know of that has build in DSP for cue effects monitoring - the programmable knob thingy is also a nice touch. I have three of them in my teaching lab - works well with Sonar, Sound Forge, etc.

-D

[mqbernardo]

the new mbox does indeed look very nice...

[rojarosguitar]

the new mbox does indeed look very nice...

That wouldn't be exactly what I would look for in first place ...

Rather for "inner values"