OS 6.1 New Operating System

[captainamerica]

I spoke to a friend of mine who does software reverse engineering and it's not easy and takes a lot of time....and of course, how much time do you put into such a project when new technology continues to evolve and mature. For example, I still use my Amiga 2000 for "some recording". The Amiga has a HUGE support "geek" base and will probably never die, but unlike LINUX, OSX, Windows, Logic, PT, DP, etc, how much time do I really want to spend making music on legacy tools that evolve at a slower rate than these platforms? I am passionate about my Amiga and my d8b, but I am a musician first and my goto DAWs for music will always look fwd, not backwards when I am creating tunes......my 2 cents here

[doktor1360]

I spoke to a friend of mine who does software reverse engineering and it's not easy and takes a lot of time....and of course, how much time do you put into such a project when new technology continues to evolve and mature. For example, I still use my Amiga 2000 for "some recording". The Amiga has a HUGE support "geek" base and will probably never die, but unlike LINUX, OSX, Windows, Logic, PT, DP, etc, how much time do I really want to spend making music on legacy tools that evolve at a slower rate than these platforms? I am passionate about my Amiga and my d8b, but I am a musician first and my goto DAWs for music will always look fwd, not backwards when I am creating tunes......

Perfectly stated... mirrors my own thoughts almost to a 'T'...

my 2 cents here

Worth so much more, inflation considered or not... \m/

[RJH_MUSIC]

I thought about that as well, but to be honest, if you compare the functionality of the d8b against current day equipment that would produce the same results, the price differential is staggering. Sure, I would love to get my hands on a Euphonix S5 fusion, but the last one I could find used, with half the channels as my 2 d8b's was $35,000. Of course there is the new state of the art AVID S6 but who has $100,000 laying around for a 16 channel version. Next, even if you wanted to buy an AVID S3 it will still set you back $5,500 and it is just a controller. It will not handle audio. Bang for the buck, the d8b is still at the top of the heap in my opinion. Yamaha's digital line of mixers may come close, but again there is price point.

[doktor1360]

I thought about that as well, but to be honest, if you compare the functionality of the d8b against current day equipment that would produce the same results, the price differential is staggering. Sure, I would love to get my hands on a Euphonix S5 fusion, but the last one I could find used, with half the channels as my 2 d8b's was $35,000. Of course there is the new state of the art AVID S6 but who has $100,000 laying around for a 16 channel version. Next, even if you wanted to buy an AVID S3 it will still set you back $5,500 and it is just a controller. It will not handle audio. Bang for the buck, the d8b is still at the top of the heap in my opinion. Yamaha's digital line of mixers may come close, but again there is price point.

Another opinion I happen to share... just because the D8B's not on the crest of current tech doesn't diminish it's value in any way. Quite to the contrary, I personally find the D8B to be radically different (in a brilliant way) - I'm an old 'poly n rust' guy, whereas an example would be that I prefer to have my hands on a fader vs a mouse. The D8B is also (IMHO) way more flexible concerning routing signals in n out, and you can spend a lot less time configuring your own particular workflow. Don't get me wrong here, I appreciate how the D8B's DAW-type interface was designed with the user in mind - but I think that's also entirely the point I'm attempting to make...

There comes a time in an engineering sense that when the software begins to increase exponentially in complexity ignoring the hardware, the product then becomes the proprietary 'developers' property and not the end users from a design roadmap perspective. And not in a good way... it's the reason I prefer open source 'wares - the community of users drive the development efforts... but that's a topic for another thread on another day...

Apologies to all for any waste of bandwidth...

Oh, and you knew it was coming... so here it is :
[Standard Mgmt Disclaimer] - "Your actual mileage may vary..."

[Y-my-R]

I had posted a response to this a little while back but deleted it shortly after, since I went down a rabbit hole a bit too far (sorry for doing that all the time).

Basically, I had the thought to try running the Mackie OS on a Linux-based system, that runs WINE (aka "Wine is not an emulator)... this thing:

https://www.winehq.org/

I haven't investigated enough yet (way too busy, lately), but my understanding of this is, that WINE may give the option to expose serial (aka COM) ports to the OS, while really addressing USB ports... kinda like what this guy was trying to do:

https://superuser.com/questions/619528/ ... e-in-linux

I haven't even had time to install Linux on a test system, yet... (I dabbled with Linux off an on, but don't currently have a ready-to-go Linux box) not to mention installing WINE and playing around with it. But AFAIK, WINE does allow to customize how it talks to the actual computer hardware and/or how it exposes it to the OS that's running within it. So, I was thinking that this at least in theory could be a good candidate to try to get the Mackie OS working on.

Anyway... it will likely be a few weeks until I get a chance to play with this, but thought I'd share the idea here, in case someone wants to pick it up and run with it... or debunk it and tell me why I have no idea what I'm talking about
(with the latter being much more likely).

Just thinking out loud...

...and as for why I'm still sticking with the D8B: Changeable I/O cards and separate XLR and TRS input jacks (I LOVE patchbays and because of that, HATE combo XLR/TRS jacks on mixers that every digital (budget) mixer seems to use nowadays). Plus, lots of I/O (especially with digital expansion cards, where conversion quality is not a factor) and pretty flexible routing just still keep it very useful to me
So, I definitely see a value in keeping it alive for some time to come, but am not sure if me being a rather unskilled hack will contribute anything to the project

[Crash]

Just thinking out loud...

...and as for why I'm still sticking with the D8B: Changeable I/O cards and separate XLR and TRS input jacks (I LOVE patchbays and because of that, HATE combo XLR/TRS jacks on mixers that every digital (budget) mixer seems to use nowadays). Plus, lots of I/O (especially with digital expansion cards, where conversion quality is not a factor) and pretty flexible routing just still keep it very useful to me
So, I definitely see a value in keeping it alive for some time to come, but am not sure if me being a rather unskilled hack will contribute anything to the project

Having built and worked on the d8b for years at the mothership, I love the console. It was so ahead of its time. The automation, recall and all of the things you mentioned were ahead of what the SSL, where I interned, could do . Having said that, the dxb is what the next iteration of what the d8b could have been. I reluctantly retired my d8b, though it had given me years and years of relatively trouble free service.

For those that want the next thing with the same vibe, I would recommend you find a dxb with the "Grado" software upgrade rather than trying to dive into the d8b OS for a redo or software "mod" if you will. You have more inputs, the capability of higher sample rates (up to 192k), the ability to run VST's on the console, lots of I/O choices including Firewire. The ability to do hardware inserts on channels is awesome as well. I promise I am not trying to sound like a sales pitch, it's just in my opinion, the next thing is already out there.

[Y-my-R]

I'm sure the DXB is a serious step up from the D8B, and it checks all the boxes I had mentioned in my last comment... but what I like about the D8B/HDR combo, is that you can fly the whole thing without HAVING to use computer monitors.

The D8B/HDR combo isn't currently my typical way of working (I work mostly with a DAW in the box, and just have the option to route 24-channels to and from the D8B digitally), but am hopeful that I will soon be able to have both, the DAW-based setup AND the HDR-based setup working without having to change the wiring - hopefully it will work that you only have to switch between them from within the D8B's software settings (i.e. DAW via ADAT on DIO-8 cards, HDR via TDIF on DIO-8 cards).
Bruce Graham from this forum is being awesome (as usual), and made a standard DB25-to-TDIF adapter for me, that is in the mail and should arrive, soon. If it works to simply switch to HDR operation via software, then there's a good chance that I'll go screen-less for part of what I usually do.
What I'm thinking to do, is to "prepare" my mixes in the DAW as usual, then export stems and transfer them to the HDR. Then do the actual mix "blind" with just the D8B and HDR, plus my outboard gear. Like, REALLY old-school.

I did start the whole recording/mixing thing with a computer based system back in the mid 90s (Digidesign Session 8, ADAT Interface and a few ADATs), so there were always screens involved for me. But that's always been the part I liked the least about the process and back then, also, I turned the screens off whenever I could (since transport and arming on the ADATs, etc. works without them).

So, for me personally, the screens on the DXB are the reason why I wouldn't want to go that way. The D8B/HDR combo is a potential escape from that bright light shining in my eyes for at least part of what I'm doing.

I know that I'm rather odd when it comes to this, though. But when people talk about the good old analog days, I usually just dream of getting rid of all those bright screens, sitting in a low-light room and twisting knobs and pushing faders on hardware (aka I'm not so much of an "analog sound" purist, but much more of a "no computer screens" guy).

...but for anyone who doesn't mind the screens as much as I do, I'm sure the DXB is the logical step!

P.S.: Of course I know that I could do the same thing with the DAW computer acting like a tape machine and the computer screens off. But somehow it has an appeal to me, to not even have a "regular" computer with distractions running... but literally just the tape machine (HDR), Mixer and outboard gear. The thought alone seems strangely liberating to me

[captainamerica]

There comes a time in an engineering sense that when the software begins to increase exponentially in complexity ignoring the hardware, the product then becomes the proprietary 'developers' property and not the end users from a design roadmap perspective. And not in a good way... it's the reason I prefer open source 'wares - the community of users drive the development efforts... but that's a topic for another thread on another day... "

spot on IMHO

[RJH_MUSIC]

Yes! Exactly. Sorry, i hope i did not give the impression that i disagreed with anything. And yes. working a fader is much more productive than a mouse. One thing i love about the d8b is how it integrates seamlessly with any DAW not just for MIDI but with Audio, which is why i will keep mine running for ever if possible. I have an Apollo 8 connected to my computer and all 10 outputs are connected to d8b inputs. I group VSTi outputs Cubase in pairs of 2 to 8 channels on d8b, Acoustic, Synths, Ambient and Bass /Perc. and assign to the 8 bus outputs, which are routed to a Mackie 32x8bus console. For vocals, I bring the MIC's directly into the d8b on channels 1-4 and assign to the output to the master outs. the master outs of the d8b are then fed back into 2 input channels and then to the bus out channels. This way I can use the faders on the d8b to control incoming vocals and add reverb and also monitor in headphones real time. No patch cables needed. on playback, I can control the entire mix using the d8b. Incredibly easy. What i don't understand about Mackie, is why they never understood what a "Diamond in the Rough" the d8b really is, and why they did not develop it further. Instead they just sold it off to Loud Technologies, who in my opinion could not see the forest through the trees. I also cannot figure out why they don't read these forum posts and realize that there is still a huge market for the d8b, not just the market of people trying to scoff up replacement parts to keep theirs alive.

[captainamerica]

No need to apologize...this is a good discussion:)
I think what's important is to have a "workflow" down that works for you, keep one hand fine-tuning that process with your S/W DAW gear, and one hand to the future so that you don't get too behind the times with technology interoperabilities and upgrades that make you obsolete....these are just tools that help us make music so try and strike the right balance....the Beatles did that with ~4 tracks, so I think we should be ok