PreSonus AudioBox USB vs. PreSonus FireBox ????

I'm trying to get a simple setup for home recording to a laptop, mostly of acoustic instruments like guitar, flute, violin, etc (maybe piano and voice too), but I'd also maybe like to plug in an electric guitar on occasion.

I'm planning to get a Rode NT1-A microphone, and have decided to go with a Presonus interface rather than M-Audio.

But which Presonus interface?

Do any of you know these two interfaces well (and if so, can you help me decide which to go with?):


PreSonus AudioBox USB

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/561318-REG/PreSonus_AUDIOBOX_USB_AudioBox_USB_Audio.html#feat ures


PreSonus FireBox

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/356702-REG/PreSonus_FIREBOX_FireBox_Interface.html#reviews


The Firebox is more expensive, obviously. It provides more line inputs and outputs (though I don't know how likely I am to use them).

The Audiobox USB is cheaper and has fewer inputs and outputs. It looks like it also has a nice dial on the front to turn off the monitoring of your current playing to avoid latency problems when recording new tracks along with old ones.

Am I missing some advantages or disadvantages of one vs the other?

If you don't need the extra I/O go with the Audio Box. USB 2.0 is plenty fast and reliable enough to get the job done. Personally it wouldn't be enough I/O for my needs. Only bummer I see with the Audio box is that some software will not recognizing its asio drivers but ASIO4ALL drivers can be substituted and are easy to use as an alternative. Following is from Presonus FAQ

Why won’t my DAW application allow me to choose the ASIO driver for my AudioBox USB?

This is a known issue with the current driver and will be resolved in a future update. In the meantime, using ASIO4all is a viable workaround.



The firebox is very good. Lots of I/O like you mention and it has provided me with three years of trouble free use. A few things to be aware of though from Presonus FAQ,

Why can’t I get enough gain from my FireBox preamps?

In order to keep the FireBox in compliance with IEEE 1394 powering standards, the voltage rails were reduced, which resulted in a slightly lower preamp gain than the preamps found in other PreSonus preamps. The FireBox has approximately 45 dB of analogue gain with an additional 12 dB via the boost for a total of 57 dB total gain. This is sufficient for the majority of the FireBox’s users’ needs. However, in situations where a low output microphone is used, quiet sound source is recorded, or very hot digital signal is required, it is recommended to pick up an external preamp (like the BlueTube DP, Tube Pre, Eureka, ADL 600, etc) and use it through line inputs 3 & 4

Take for example the Shure SM58. Based on its specifications, a 94 dB signal into the microphone will result in an output signal of -54 dB. (90 dB is roughly equivalent to the volume of a blender.) So if you record something as loud as a blender with an SM58, the result would be a maximum attainable signal level of +3 dBV (or -15 dBFS). An SM57 has an even lower output (-56dBV/Pa) and would result in a maximum signal level of approximately +1dBV. Conversely, the Shure KSM27 condenser microphone has a sensitivity of -37 dB/Pa. This gives a preamplified signal of +20 dBV (or +3 dBFS) -- a signal roughly 30 times louder than that of the SM58.

You also want to make darn sure that your Laptop is IE 1394 compliant with preferably a Texas Instruments chipset if you chose the firebox. Some other firewire chipset have caused problems but I can't locate this in the FAQ but I damn well know from past research a firewire input using a Texas Instruments chipset was recommended.


PS....your Rhode condensor mic would work fine with either interface. Don't worry about the gain issue with that mic.

What Stu said.

I too use the Friebox and really like it for the money. With the Rode it should be great. When I use a 57, cascade ribbon or Heil pr30 I go through a Great River preamp so I have plenty of gain. USB 2.0 works pretty darn well. When it was only v1 or firewire it was an easy choice. Now, not so much.

OK, a dumb followup question....

What sorts of things are you using those extra inputs on the FireBox for? Am I correct that they are NOT used for microphones or instruments, but rather for inputs from things like CD players, or other similar kinds of sources???(or from mixers maybe???).


Am I reading your comments above correctly in thinking that if I don't need the extra inputs (and being totally new to this home recording thing, I'm not altogether certain whether or not I will in time need them), that the USB device might actually be better than the FireBox because is would work better with a bigger variety of microphones?

(Rode currently has a deal to get an extra microphone (not an extra NT1-A, some other Rode microphone) for $1 when you buy an NT1-A, so if this extra one is not a condensor mic maybe I should be concerned about the FireBox?)

the biggest advantage of more inputs for a one-person studio is that you can keep more input devices at the standing ready — for instance, your main vocal mike, an instrumental (amp) mike, a POD or other modeler, a preamp or DI for acoustic, and so forth. that way, when you're laying down tracks, you don't have to interrupt your workflow to unplug one and plug in another.

i don't think USB has any advantage as far as working with a variety of mikes, however. both USB and FireWire interfaces interpret and convert the audio data you put into them.

Thanks. Both of these devices have only 2 inputs for microphones or instruments though (am I correct?). The others, I'm assuming, are for other sources (but I don't yet know enough about home recording to really have a good feel for what these other sources are).

i think they have a pair of line inputs on the back ... with those, you could bypass the preamp when you need to (like using another preamp, a POD or whatever).

I really like having my audio on FireWire.

While the speed of USB2 is theoretically faster than FireWire, you have so many more devices potentially competing for cycles on the USB bus that (based on my experience only) you're much more likely to get glitches/dropouts than with FireWire. Rolling the mousewheel, for example, has produced hiccups on a number of my machines.

I use a PreSonus FireBox and an Echo AudioFire through an Adaptec FireWire Card with good results on WinXP and Vista.

Yep. That's right. I can use the 2 preamps on the front which are ok, but not primo. And I can use 2 outboard preamps on the back like my Great River or Woodman's the Brick preamp. So you can use 4 mics total or like you said, a turntable, tape deck, drum machine, etc. plus 2 mics on front or a mic and a DI instrument like maybe bass.

So don't worry so much about USB 2 or firewire. These should be looked at as a 2 input model or a 4 input model. If price matters a lot go with the first one. Or look for a used firebox for a few dollars more.

This is all very helpful.

But one question I still have is whether I would be bothered by the lower preamp gain of the FireBox (described in one of the posts above).

If, for example, I find myself wanting to use a Shure SM57 or SM58 at some point (and if I did not want to be shelling out more money for an additional preamp), would this work better with the USB version than with the FireBox?

I have no real idea. I can only say it hasn't been a problem for me. It may be for others. I use a 57 sometimes for mic'ing my guitar amp. It's loud. It's not a problem. Playing violin across the room? Might be a problem. But I dont' use a 57 for violin anyway.

This is all very helpful.

But one question I still have is whether I would be bothered by the lower preamp gain of the FireBox (described in one of the posts above).

If, for example, I find myself wanting to use a Shure SM57 or SM58 at some point (and if I did not want to be shelling out more money for an additional preamp), would this work better with the USB version than with the FireBox?

I know using my Firebox that I can't get a good enough signal for recording acoustic innstruments using a Shure SM57 and 58. If I play through an amp set at higher levels it isn't a problem but I find the amp has to be set a little too loud for the house.

99.9% of the time use an external mic pre-amp like Old Cane does for these mics and I plugin the external pre-amp through a line level input in the back of the Firebox.

I would send an email off to Presonus and clarify if the gain issue applies to the Audio box aswell.

Well, I got the Firebox together with a Rode NT1-A a few days ago.

I haven't had a chance to do too much recording yet, but this all seems to work quite well. I'm very impressed by the sound, though there clearly is a big steep learning curve here that I will have to climb before I am totally satisfied with the acoustic guitar sound I am getting. Some of this learning curve has to do with dealing with room acoustics and mic placement, and a lot has to do with learning how to process the sound files after recording.

The firebox works fine running on power from the Firewire cable when hooked up to our Macbook, but it needs to be hooked up to its external power source at least initially to boot up when using my Macbook Pro from work. This is irritating, but something I was aware of as a potential problem before purchasing.

With a Mac you don't need any extra drivers to use the Firebox. You just plug it in, and Garageband (and presumably other programs too) recognize it is there. There are two programs though that you can/should install that allow you to control some features of the Firebox.

I've gotten a few little soft pops or clicks or something in one or two of my guitar recordings. Not sure what this is all about. I need to experiment some more and see if this is a recurring problem. This has not happened in the several voice recordings (low volume talking and singing) that we have done. I'm not sure what is going on with these clicks, but there is much that I don't know yet, so there might be some simple explanation.

were the clicks at punch points, or occurring in the middle of a recorded passage?

I tried an M-audio ultra USB on my laptop - couldn't get a big enough buffer to get rid of the pop and clicks. No problem on the quad core Mac, but the Dell XPS 1330 just couldn't do it. Got the Presonus Firebox and now all is good! The laptop runs fine, no latency problems. Go with a firewire box....

spotface, you were having a different problem (same result, so this is a good place to discuss it)

number one tip from your uncle getbent, TURN OFF your wireless card when you record.
TURN OFF file sharing if you have it on. Quit All active applications. If you do that on the Dell and you still have the problem, the next step would be to make sure your hard drive was defragged, no viruses, IE inactive, hard drive half empty or better and then add additional ram if you have satisfied that part and still get the pops and crackles...

on the OP's problem... my first suspicion is that his signal is too hot. Digital no likey the hot signal.

Thanks getbent - did all that stuff to no avail - seems the firebox is easier on system resources and thus gets my vote for use on the laptop. I think wcap was asking for advantages/disadvantages for the two boxes....

Thanks everyone. Lots of good discussion here (I love TDPRI even though I hardly ever play may Tele or Strat anymore - lots of very helpful people here).

The strange little pops (actually, some of them sounded sort of like tiny little gaps in the recording) were scattered during the recording a track. (I'm not sure what punch points are though).

My hypotheses prior to the responses above were (1) that the computer was getting sidetracked by something else in the middle of the recording and missed a few brief moments of the sound, (2) that the record level was too high (but these pops did not come at moments of high volume), and/or (3) that I might have exhaled too hard too close to the microphone. Though avoiding breath sounds is seeming to be a difficult problem, I don't think (3) is the answer. And the fact that the pops don't come when the music is really loud makes me think that (2) is not the answer (but please correct me if you think I might be wrong). I suspect (1) is the answer. I did in fact quit my e-mail program to keep it from trying to check for mail while I was recording, but I had a few other programs open, and I had not thought to turn off the wireless.

I've done a bit more recording today and so far I have not noticed any problems, but I'll have to try to remember to turn off the wireless and quit other programs in the future.

punch points are where two separate regions meet (generally where you punched in), and they sometimes make a click where two waveforms collide. but that doesn't seem like your problem from what you said. maybe quitting all other programs will solve your prob — recording software likes to have the whole computer to itself!

1) if this is the problem is stounds like static electricity pops
2) I seriously doubt this one
3) this makes a sound like somebody whacked a live mic or stand, sort of

If it really is #3 either get a pop filter which you need anyway (or make one) or hang the mic down when you sing and sing under it, not up toward it. You can angle it so it is facing your mouth but your voice would still be traveling under the diaphram. You can also sing over it but I've had better luck by having the mic high and singer low (and no, you NEVER want the singer to be high).

When I say hang it I still use a mic stand. I just turn the mic upside down. Make sure it's secure in the clip. Duct tape really is the handyman's secret weapon.

If it's 1, I thought you needed to reduce the buffer size, not increase it.

punch points are where two separate regions meet (generally where you punched in), and they sometimes make a click where two waveforms collide. but that doesn't seem like your problem from what you said. maybe quitting all other programs will solve your prob — recording software likes to have the whole computer to itself!

Just curious....if one does have problems with clicks at punch points (not my problem now, but maybe in the future), how is this dealt with?

1) if this is the problem is stounds like static electricity pops.



This is what most of them sound like. But as I said, some also sort of sound like there is also a very brief gap in the music, which I guess would make sense since a moment of recording probably was missed while the computer was busy with something else.

Thanks again everyone for all the help.

Just curious....if one does have problems with clicks at punch points (not my problem now, but maybe in the future), how is this dealt with?

on an unfortunate punch, if you zero in on your waveform to where it's a scrawly line, the lines won't meet up, and often this can cause a "tick" in your audio. generally, you deal with it using a crossfade ... but Garageband's Achilles heel is an inability to crossfade.

in GB, you can solve the problem using volume automation to duck the offending spot to 0 dB, but it's not as smooth as a real crossfade. you can do a real crossfade if you use two tracks, bringing one track down as you bring the other up — but as processor-intensive as GB is (limiting your track count), that technique couldn't be used as a matter of routine.

Hmm....I have so much to learn. About a year ago when I was fooling around with Garage Band I tried cutting out a bit of a recording where I fumbled some notes and replaced that bit with the same part of the music from a different take where I got it right. It was really hard to get it to sound OK - the transitions were too abrupt. I'm guessing that crossfading in and out of the spliced in bit is maybe what would have made this sound better (that is, if it was possible to do this in Garage Band)?

So, if Garage Band is really processor intensive with lots of tracks, are there other programs that handle lots of tracks without being so processor intensive?



(Its kind of funny....the other thread I started recently about software has shifted into a thread about hardware, and now this one about hardware is shifting into software.)

wcap, what are the specs on your Mac? punch "About This Mac" under your Apple menu and tell us your processor speed, RAM etc. ... if yours is a more modern one with the duo-core Intel processor and plenty of RAM, you won't have many worries getting 12 or so, and can probably squeeze more out of it by locking the tracks you're not working on.

locking (just punch the padlock icon in your track window) renders the track to your hard drive — after that, the software reads the locked tracks off the HD, so the processor is no longer responsible for all that heavy lifting. using this technique, i was able to squeeze nine tracks out of a sluggish old G3. life got easier in GB once i got my Intel-chip machine!

also, using a boatload of effects (especially amp sims) gobbles up processor power. it really pays to lock an effect-heavy track. you can always unlock it and work on it some more if need be.

It was really hard to get it to sound OK - the transitions were too abrupt. I'm guessing that crossfading in and out of the spliced in bit is maybe what would have made this sound better?


crossfades help with more subtle transitions, but you really need to work with your volume automation on drastic jumps in level ... get the two regions where the volume is even, then enlarge your waveform to get the break point in a gap of silence between notes. if you can get their intersection to where silence meets silence, you won't need a crossfade.

Thanks again for all the info.

I have a pretty new Mac, so I think I'm set pretty well.

Regarding locking tracks..... sounds like GB never touches the original recordings (sort of like photo programs like Lightroom do completely non-destructive editing). This is good.

And besides, at the moment, I'm not sure what I'd do with a dozen tracks (unless I got into doing some really weird creative stuff creating choruses of many of myself singing together, or something). At the moment, the most I am imagining is maybe a half dozen or so, and most of my music projects will probably be less than this.

You'll be surprised at how fast the number of tracks add up...

one thing I'd note is that your interpretation of locking tracks and non destructive editing is confusing to me... I may not be understanding what you meant (apologies in advance)

but the purpose behind locking tracks is primarily to reduce processing while playing the track and editing or capturing other tracks. It is true that you can't edit locked tracks, but the purpose was to free up processing power (essentially to tell the processor not to poll the track for changes) which would allow for a greater number of total tracks to play concurrently.

next,
The codebase for GB is the same as for the rest of the ilife suite... so, if you consider how photos work in iphoto the part about nondestructive editing comes a little clearer-->

example: if you import a picture into iphoto and then edit that picture without putting the picture into a playlist--> it is forever changed.

if you put a photo from the main photos section into a playlist and edit it---> you can always go back to the original capture.

I only mention this because I don't want you to get a surprise and find that you've made big changes/edits etc and find you cannot undo without limit. While it is xml underneath... there are split points where it would get unwieldy to 'go forever'....

I hope that makes sense.

The degree of "nondestructiveness" of Garage Band is something I will want to look into. As I think about it further, and read your post, I'm thinking it is maybe less non-destructive than I was thinking.

I'll have to investigate this, but I'm guessing that the original clips are never touched (never overwritten), so you can always go back to the start and apply effects differently, for example. But if you lock a track you are saving an altered (or rendered, as one says in video editing) version that can be played back without the computer having to do all the calculations for all the effects during playback. If all that was done to that track was the application of effects, then I would assume you could go back to the original and start over. I suppose though that if there was copying and pasting and inserting of bits from here and there then backtracking would not be so simple. Is this more or less correct?

I have not used iPhoto much, but have used Lightroom a lot. In Lightroom, the original photo is never touched. If you do edits you can always go back to the original if you wish (the edits are saved as instructions on how to do the alterations of the photo, not as altered pixel data). To make the changes permanent you need to save a new copy.

Obviously, what I need to do to understand how this works is experiment some more with Garage Band at this point (I suppose reading a Garage Band manual wouldn't hurt either, but that would almost be like having a guy ask for driving directions.....).

I would assume you could go back to the original and start over.

yep, all you have to do is unlock the track and re-edit to your heart's content.

i often save each stage of my songs as a new version ... that way, if i remember a passage i liked two weeks ago and can't replicate it, i can go back to the old version and pluck it out. GB won't give you unlimited tracks, but a beefy hard drive will give you as many successive copies as you want ... once the tune is complete, you can trash the obsolete versions.